Advice on Sampler: EMU e64, Akai S3000 or Kurzweil K2500 ???
Michael Gerdau
I'm considering buying a sampler and would like some educated advice
on what are the criteria to choose and why one or another sampler will
satisfy them or not.
Thanx, Michael
--
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
| Michael Gerdau Institut fuer Meereskunde |
| ger...@ifm.uni-hamburg.de Universitaet Hamburg |
| Tel. +49(0)40 4123 2988 Troplowitzstrasse 7 |
| FAX +49(0)40 560 5724 D-22529 Hamburg (Letters) |
| 2b or not 2b that's ff D-20146 Hamburg (Parcels) |
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
Johnny603
Cyno1
Karl Dannucci
Does new, expensive gear get you hot, or can you find the sampler you need
in older tech? (Think of the albums you like, and find out what they used.
My point is that some beautiful music can be made with old, used
instruments)
Keyboard or rackmount?
What amount of polyphony do you need (voices)?
How many samples will you play at once?
Do you need built in effects, or will you use outside effects (I think
outside effects are the better option, but not everyone thinks that way)?
How many audio outputs will you use (2(stereo), 4, 8, or 10(K2000))?
How much filtering do you expect (lowpass,highpass, resonant, etc.)?
How much digital processing do you expect (timestretching, cut/copy/paste,
looping, backwards)?
How many envelopes and LFOs do you expect per sample? Globally?
Are you a rocket scientist, or does it have to be easy to use?
Some people (like me) may realize that the expense and bludgoning
complexity of new samplers may be more than you can afford or want to
handle. In short: look into older gear.
In rec.music.makers.synth ger...@ifm.uni-hamburg.de (Michael Gerdau) said:
>I'm considering buying a sampler and would like some educated advice on
what
>are the criteria to choose and why one or another sampler will satisfy
them or
>not.
:"! 8*) :^! 8") :*! 8^) %-) %"p :*, %^p :", %*p :^, \-, \"@ C*i \^@ C"i \*@
dso : the conceptual continuity : Karl D'Annucci
C^i ;-i ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
audiMok (also known as Santa)
>Consider these criteria b4 you start your search:
>Does new, expensive gear get you hot, or can you find the sampler you need
>in older tech? (Think of the albums you like, and find out what they used.
>My point is that some beautiful music can be made with old, used
>instruments)
While this statement is applicable to synths, it is not so with
samplers. Newer samplers have no "sound" of its own. Some may argue
that older samplers color the sound (read: Mirage) but in this day
and age of 16-bit full-bandwith samplers, getting an older sampler is
purely a novelty (and/or an economic decision). Once you get over the
"grungy" sound of the Mirage, you'll want more.
To paraphrase a Keyboard magazine writer on the topic; all samplers
sound alike today. The only difference is the bell and whistles.
I can safely say that given the current crop of samplers on the
market, you can't go wrong with any one of them. Especially with more
manufacturers now offering compatibility to other manufacturer's
sounds. The deciding question therefore is "How much are you willing
to spend." Like with everything else, you do get what you pay for.
audiMok...creature of earth
am...@charlie.usd.edu
S P A C E F O R R E N T
(prices slightly higher in Iowa)
Karl Dannucci
>base...@nyc.pipeline.com (Karl Dannucci) wrote:
>>Does new, expensive gear get you hot, or can you find the sampler you
need
>>in older tech? (Think of the albums you like, and find out what they
used.
>>My point is that some beautiful music can be made with old, used
>>instruments)
>While this statement is applicable to synths, it is not so with samplers.
>Newer samplers have no "sound" of its own. Some may argue that older
samplers
>color the sound (read: Mirage) but in this day and age of 16-bit
full-bandwith
>samplers, getting an older sampler is purely a novelty (and/or an economic
>decision). Once you get over the "grungy" sound of the Mirage, you'll
want
>more.
Daddy Warbucks, I thought that I should point out that older samplers don't
nessarily "bad". The examples I'm thinking of are the 12-bit samplers they
have by the case load in instrument stores. And I also cite Peter
Gabriel's beautiful natural sounding music, made with a Fairlight (maybe
rare and expensive, but quite old) and an Emulator (old!) and an Akai S900
(not exactly hi-tech). Listen to _Passion_ and believe it came from such
antiques.
>To paraphrase a Keyboard magazine writer on the topic; all samplers sound
>alike today. The only difference is the bell and whistles.
(from the yucky Mirage and quick-disk machines to the Prophet 2000 and Akai
S950).
>I can safely say that given the current crop of samplers on the market,
you
>can't go wrong with any one of them.
Especially with more manufacturers now
>offering compatibility to other manufacturer's sounds. The deciding
question
>therefore is "How much are you willing to spend." Like with everything
else,
>you do get what you pay for.
audiMok (also known as Santa)
>I was not looking for a grungy sound. Realizing that musicians are not all
>Daddy Warbucks, I thought that I should point out that older samplers don't
>nessarily "bad". The examples I'm thinking of are the 12-bit samplers they
>have by the case load in instrument stores. And I also cite Peter
>Gabriel's beautiful natural sounding music, made with a Fairlight (maybe
>rare and expensive, but quite old) and an Emulator (old!) and an Akai S900
>(not exactly hi-tech). Listen to _Passion_ and believe it came from such
>antiques.
My point is if I were to buy a sampler today, I would not buy a Mirage
(unless it's my second sampler and would not hurt my bank account)
Sampling is an expensive game to get into. If you are serious about
it, you'll have to spend the bucks. I do not like it and I'm sure
many others do not either. But if you want to set yourself apart,
soundwise, from most of the home-studio pack, a sampler can help (an a
stack of CD-ROMs) If you want to dabble, well....
Peter Gabriel and Jimmy Jam still uses Mirages, Emulators etc for the
same reason some still use Minimoogs and TR808s: Character.
These samplers can provide the edge they are looking for.
Let's not forget these producers have racks o gear to augment that
Mirage sound. A Mirage solo over beautifully recorded grand pianos,
strings and drums sound different than a home recording done with
nothig but Mirage samples.
By today's standards, you do not want your 16-bit sampler to have
character. I do not think Gabriel, Jam and other sample-type people
have these old samplers as their main sampler.
Notes
known as "Santa")) wrote:
>While this statement is applicable to synths, it is not so with
>samplers. Newer samplers have no "sound" of its own.
This is 100% INCORRECT!. I don't give a damn about what any magazine says.
All you have to do is listen to an ESI-32 and compare it to a Roland S-760
or an EIV. Same sample....and you can hear the difference, it's OBVIOUS on
a speakers/monitors. The differences in resolution, polyphoney, A/D
converters, D/A converters, internal digital dynamics, etc. ALL INFLUENCE
THE SOUND to one degree or another. If you don't accept that...than you're
saying "all A/D/ & D/A converters" have the same sound.
A Raw sample with no dynamcis processing applied will sound different in
different samplers from the differences in the A/D & D/A converters alone!
The Bit processing rate, etc. You can even do it all _digitally_ and they
will sound different.
> The only difference is the bell and whistles.
That's a bunch of bullshit and if you believe it.....you've never heard many
samplers or evaluated the OS's of many samplers. Look, some companies use
cheaper components than others....employ differences in resolution of the
data, their all differnt in their "punch" how "tight" they are, etc.
LM Notes
Neil (Chris N.) Bradley
: In Article <40m4nr$o...@sunbird.usd.edu>, am...@charlie.usd.edu (audiMok (also
: known as "Santa")) wrote:
: >While this statement is applicable to synths, it is not so with
: >samplers. Newer samplers have no "sound" of its own.
: This is 100% INCORRECT!. I don't give a damn about what any magazine says.
: All you have to do is listen to an ESI-32 and compare it to a Roland S-760
: or an EIV. Same sample....and you can hear the difference, it's OBVIOUS on
: a speakers/monitors. The differences in resolution, polyphoney, A/D
You're absolutely right. I own an ASR-10 and an Emax II and the two are very
different sounding beasts - even with the same samples. The Emax tends to
color the samples, while the ASR-10 leaves them pretty much intact.
: > The only difference is the bell and whistles.
: That's a bunch of bullshit and if you believe it.....you've never heard many
: samplers or evaluated the OS's of many samplers. Look, some companies use
: cheaper components than others....employ differences in resolution of the
: data, their all differnt in their "punch" how "tight" they are, etc.
I agree 100%. Each sampler has its own unique sound, usage, etc... just like
synths. Those with untrained ears just can't hear the difference.
-->Neil
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nature kicks total ass! Thank God for Taco Bell and big hooters!"
Jon Drukman
: What are the criteria for some to consider sampler A to be better for
: their needs and why do other consider B or C to be far superior (and
: sometimes for the very same reasons ? :-) )
They vary from person to person. I prefer the K2000 as a sampler
because it has a huge array of tools for mutating and mangling the
sound once it's inside the machine. Others might prefer an Akai S3000
which has far fewer tools, but much more faithful sound reproduction.
It really depends what you want the machine for, I guess. I wanted to
make strange, surreal, science-fiction dance music. I bought the
tools most appropriate for this task.
/jon
Karl Dannucci
standard, but I think most hi-tech studios need a K2000 in them.
(K2000 and K2500 are very similar in nature so I'll treat them as siblings
for now on.)
The K2000 has an astoundingly complex voice filtering architecture. The
algorhythms, with crazy ENVs and LFOs and FUNs plugged in, can warp samples
beyond recognition easily. In fact, the trouble is learning to master the
power that the Kurzweil gives you. I like using the K2000s that others
have, but I like to use a 800 pound gorilla analogy: the Kurzweil is like
an 800 pound gorilla in your studio; it likes to push your applications
around, and I want to be the only 800 pound gorilla in my studio.
For more info read the SAMPLER '94 issue of Keyboard magazine. I know they
liked the S3000, highlighting its analog-ish digital resonant filter, but
Klaus Schulze said he liked the filters from the Emulator IIIxp better
(more Moog-like). Read the mag, before I transcribe anymore.
>And now that we are back to my original question: what exactly is it that
I
>should look for ?
>I understand all samplers have their strength and weaknesses and there
probably
>is no such thing as a "best" sampler.
their
>needs and why do other consider B or C to be far superior (and sometimes
for
>the very same reasons ? :-) )
>
the
>same reason. So it wasn't that helpful after all.
--
"CUC............................................................
dso : the conceptual continuity : Karl D'Annucci
TONE
I say hands down K2500 !!!. Don't get me wrong the other samplers are great
sounding machines. From a synthesis stand point I find the K2000 and K2500
to be THE BEST. The sampling and DSP funtions work very well.
I find the K2000 and K2500 very easy to get around on but the bottom line
is the sound. IT SOUNDS GREAT. Go to your nearest music dealer and ask to
check out all three.
As you may have guested I own a K2000 and I am very happy with it.
Good Luck.
Tony Di Lorenzo
______________________________________________
E-mail
thef...@interport.net
______________________________________________
Front Room Productions - Sound developers for
Kurzweil Synthesizers.
______________________________________________
Please Visit The Front Room.
http://www.interport.net/~thefront/index.html
" In The Front Is The Future "
______________________________________________
Notes
(Karl Dannucci) wrote:
>Well, E-Mu has made some classic samplers and Akai is the industry
>standard, but I think most hi-tech studios need a K2000 in them.
?
You poor deprived musicians & producers. You've never sampled until you've
worked with Roland S-760 :-). Punch, clarity, tightness..etc...the audio
clarity/sound is superb. What kind of memory do those Kurzweils take and
how much does it cost? The 32 Megs in my Roland S-760 cost $850, brand new
memory.
Once you've qualified the sound, the features, etc., samplers are nothing
more than _tools_. The next parameter becomes "which is the more
productive/efficient tool?"
Well...you can poke your fingers on little buttons, squint your eyes looking
for data....but in my studio...I have a mouse pad on the top of my KX-88 and
a 15" color monitor in front of me. Sampling is wonderful....simple,
productive..etc....There's a reason people prefer "mouse driven point &
click" Operating Systems on personal computers. It's the most productive /
effective approach to interface with an OS & data on a screen. That's why
most people reading this are using a point & click/ mouse driven
OS...Windows or Mac OS or OS/2 or another.
Again, at this level, K2500, e64, S-760, etc...their all great and your
really splitting hairs in terms of their distinctive sounds, etc. The next
parameter of measure is which is the best "tool". Think about it....
LM Notes
D190
(my opionion only). The flexibility of programming is incredible. I can
have as many layers on each note as I want. Every sample can be processed
thru a resonant low pass filter and a multimode filter that has low
pass/hi pass/ band pass/all pass (or phase shift). I know the K2000 also
has awesome filters. Over the last three years, I have demoed the K2000
with the intention of buying one, but IMHO it doesn't sound as good as the
Akai S3200. In addition, the S3200 has stereo direct-to-disk recording.
You can play back recordings simultaneously with samples triggered from
MIDI. The D-D recordings can be edited with fades, triggered from MIDI, or
triggered from time-code, with the built-in SMPTE interface.
I think the K2000 is a wonderful machine. The Akai S3200 is simply more
versatile in a professional recording environment.
Mike McRoberts
Jon Drukman
: You poor deprived musicians & producers. You've never sampled until you've
: worked with Roland S-760 :-). Punch, clarity, tightness..etc...the audio
: clarity/sound is superb. What kind of memory do those Kurzweils take and
: how much does it cost? The 32 Megs in my Roland S-760 cost $850, brand new
: memory.
Kurzweils take standard computer SIMMs like you'd stick in your PC or
Macintosh. So you can shop around for a good price...
: Again, at this level, K2500, e64, S-760, etc...their all great and your
: really splitting hairs in terms of their distinctive sounds, etc. The next
: parameter of measure is which is the best "tool". Think about it....
I said it once already in this thread, guess I'll say it again... the
best tool is that which is most appropriate for your job. For making
strange, science-fiction dance music (my particular job), I *need* the
flexibility of the K2000 architecture. punch, clarity and tightness
are almost meaningless parameters for me.
--
jon drukman / j...@www.opcode.com / opcode r&d
speaking from opcode, not for opcode.
Notes
wrote:
For making
>strange, science-fiction dance music (my particular job), I *need* the
>flexibility of the K2000 architecture.
>jon drukman / j...@www.opcode.com / opcode r&d
>speaking from opcode, not for opcode.
Wait a minute...what is it about the K2000 architecture that's unique to the
K2000 and distinguishes it from the e64, S760, and S3200/3000?
LM Notes
Rip Dawkins
>In Article <41vn2a$4...@news2.aimnet.com>, j...@www.opcode.com (Jon Drukman)
>wrote:
>
>K2000 and distinguishes it from the e64, S760, and S3200/3000?
>
>LM Notes
>
What is it about the K2000/K2500 architecture?!? You're kidding right? ;-)
Come on, ya gotta do *some* homework before you post here .... the difference is
V.A.S.T .
-Rip.
Jon Drukman
: >strange, science-fiction dance music (my particular job), I *need* the
: >flexibility of the K2000 architecture.
: Wait a minute...what is it about the K2000 architecture that's unique to the
: K2000 and distinguishes it from the e64, S760, and S3200/3000?
are you trolling, kidding, or have you just not been paying attention?
go read some kurzweil literature about the features of the "VAST"
engine. it totally outclasses the other boxes you've mentioned in
every respect. those machines are great for super-clean playback of
samples, of course. but if you want some incredibly powerful sound
warping tools, there is nothing that can touch the K2000. (well, i
suppose the korg oasys will give it a run for its money when it
ships... but the price differential is pretty huge.)
--
Anthony Ruggeri
>Wait a minute...what is it about the K2000 architecture that's unique to the
>K2000 and distinguishes it from the e64, S760, and S3200/3000?
A ton... for one thing, the K2k has ROM and bills itself as a Synthesizer
(V.A.S.T. stands for Variable Architecture Synthesis Technology) which can
plug in piles of different DSP processing. The sampling end is almost an
afterthought. Well, maybe not an afterthought, but just a way of getting tons
more samples to channel through all that processing power. Your standard
sample->envelope->filter setup is just one of many possible
configurations.
At that level, as a synth, the K2k blows away any other sampler out there. As
"just a sampler with maybe a resonant filter" it's overkill. But if you want
to get samples and then f*ck with them until they sound totally different,
it's really the way to go.
--> arug...@netaxs.com \/\ techno / ambient / house / IDM
Dei Sub / Anthony Ruggeri \/\ MPS+ DW8000 Juno106 JV1080 ESi32 D4 ESQm
http://www.netaxs.com/~aruggeri \/\ MV4 HRMP5 LM3204 DA30MkII 486DX2/66
Notes
wrote:
>are you trolling, kidding, or have you just not been paying attention?
>--
>jon drukman / j...@www.opcode.com / opcode r&d
>speaking from opcode, not for opcode.
I started paying "attention alright"...I woke up and smelled the coffee
after being a long time Opcode Vision user, I decided to enter the "modern
era" and _abandoned_ your company's product in favor of Emagic Logic Audio,
like thousands of others! So yes, I've been paying attention.....I think
Opcode was the party not paying attention to their customers my good
friend....and the wise one's left Opcode! I'll have 2.5 Logic Audio next
month, native, and be happy.
LM Notes
Notes
Ruggeri) wrote:
>A ton... for one thing, the K2k has ROM and bills itself as a Synthesizer
>(V.A.S.T. stands for Variable Architecture Synthesis Technology) which can
>plug in piles of different DSP processing.
Well true...I'm sorry, I was not thinking of it on this basis of comparison.
I was thinking of it purely as a sampler.
LM Notes
Jon Drukman
> >are you trolling, kidding, or have you just not been paying attention?
> I started paying "attention alright"...I woke up and smelled the coffee
> after being a long time Opcode Vision user, I decided to enter the "modern
> era" and _abandoned_ your company's product in favor of Emagic Logic Audio,
> like thousands of others!
ah, very mature, thanks for contributing.
i'm sorry but i just assumed you must have been trolling for flames since
the feature set of the k2 had been hashed out a dozen times or more in
this newsgroup in the last few weeks.
the short answer is: the k2000 has an incredibly powerful synthesis engine
that you can run your samples through. if you just want super-clean
sample playback with "punch" and "clarity" and "brightness" you're looking
at the wrong box. if you're looking for very good sample playback with
"warp" and "throb" and "splut" and maybe even a little "sneeearrggghhh",
you've come to the right machine.
enjoy your copy of logic audio.
-jon d.
VerySmooth
;-)
Come on, ya gotta do *some* homework before you post here .... the
difference is V.A.S.T . >
I owned a K-2000 for a while, then it crashed, so it's history.
For the month or so it worked it seemed rather D-50-ish in the respect,
that the most musically usable way of creating news programs was to dial
up another waveset. It's not that I wasn't able to use all those VAST
algorithms to make deep, stunning changes to the factory progs, but the
results were mostly dissonant timbres.
If I buy any current model sampler it will be only an E-IV because I
definitely need 128-voice polyphony. But I'll buy it only after they
ironed out the OS bugs I heard about... it was enough already to be an
unwilling beta-tester for the K-2000, I'm "not really" into doing the same
again with an E-IV.
Just my 2 cent's worth. :-)
PS.- a propos K-2000. I bought an old K-1200 (I needed a sound-making
weighted 88-key master controller) and I like both the sounds _and_ the
manual better than the K-2000's. And this puppy doesn't crash, either.
Go figure
George
VerySmooth
engine. it totally outclasses the other boxes you've mentioned in
every respect. >
Why, what you expect Kurzweil literature to say? That the K-2000 can't
hold a candle to other units? :-)
The only way to judge the K-2000 is to play/program it for a while. I did.
My opinion is that the K-2000 is a sample playback machine with sound
coloring possibilities. It's sonic paletter is 95% sample playback and 5%
synthesis. While this is still better than any Korg T or M or OW ever
made, it is far from being a synthesis engine that can take, say, a
blizzard sound and make it into an acoustic grand.
The only way to get that proverbial "any imaginable sound, limited only by
your imagination" on the K-2000 is to load it from somewhere, sampled.
While sample playback is nice, if I already take a sample playback
machine, I'd prefer an E-IV which has three time the polyphony.
George
Jon Drukman
(VerySmooth) wrote:
> < go read some kurzweil literature about the features of the "VAST"
> engine. it totally outclasses the other boxes you've mentioned in
> every respect. >
>
> Why, what you expect Kurzweil literature to say? That the K-2000 can't
> hold a candle to other units? :-)
the original poster asked what made it different, not whether it was
good. the literature can at least enumerate all the different filters,
modulators, etc... i didn't feel like typing in the names of all the
filters, so kill me.
> The only way to judge the K-2000 is to play/program it for a while. I did.
> My opinion is that the K-2000 is a sample playback machine with sound
> coloring possibilities.
that's like saying that a nuclear bomb is an explosive device with death
possibilities. technically accurate but it tends to understate the
enormity of the device's capabilities.
> It's sonic paletter is 95% sample playback and 5%
> synthesis.
how do you arrive at these figures? you can make it 100% sample playback
and 0% synthesis if you like... or it can be 100% synthesis and 0% sample
playback. it all depends on the particular program.
> While this is still better than any Korg T or M or OW ever
> made, it is far from being a synthesis engine that can take, say, a
> blizzard sound and make it into an acoustic grand.
well, at least it can go the other way... :)
> The only way to get that proverbial "any imaginable sound, limited only by
> your imagination" on the K-2000 is to load it from somewhere, sampled.
not so. you can take a really boring sampled sound and completely mangle
it into something out of control. you wouldn't believe what my friend has
constructed using just the built-in crash cymbal!
personally, i like taking drum loops and turning them into weird rhythmic
synthetic washes.
admittedly, this doesn't have much usefulness in the pop songwriting
arena, or working out orchestrations. fortunately for me, i'm not in the
pop songwriting arena. i really think that if you're trying to do pop
music, it's not the right box. i mean, yeah, it sounds OK for that sort
of stuff, but it's not really OPTIMIZED for it, you know? for weird
soundtracks, or ambient stuff, or techno, nothing can touch it. and
surprise, that's what i use it for. "the right tool for the right job"...
-j-
Pete
: If I buy any current model sampler it will be only an E-IV because I
: definitely need 128-voice polyphony. But I'll buy it only after they
: ironed out the OS bugs I heard about... it was enough already to be an
: unwilling beta-tester for the K-2000, I'm "not really" into doing the same
: again with an E-IV.
: George
Only half the voices and memory capacity, but the E64 avoids most of
those bugs and costs a lot less. I'm told that by some knowledgable
users. I haven't had mine long enough to spot deep problems, but so far
I'm very pleased with it. I miss the 18 output capability of my EIII,
but I really didn't plan to use the 64 that way anyway. On the EIV, I
think they should give you a lot more outputs for that kind of price tag.
I am finding that the 64 slows down when I have a larger sample load in
it - cursor response mainly; the sample processing isn't affected ...
fast as hell! I'm going to talk to EMU about it.
Pete
KURZWEIL
synthesis. <<
It seems obvious that you never took much time in exploring VAST or
experimenting with synthesis. VAST is from any objective standpoint,
without question the most powerful synthesis enginer that has ever been
made available in any commercial instrument. There are 60 different DSP
functions capable of modifying or adding to a basic sample or waveform,
including 17 differnt types of filters! Name one other instrument that can
make that claim - there is nothing that comes close! Furthermore, the
amountof realtime control you have over every aspect of the sound is far
greater than on any other instrument. You can literally use any control
source to control any part of the sound, whether itbe pitch amplitude, or
any of the changes which occur when using a DSP function. Furthermore,
there is an enormous control source list, comprising, all MIDI
controllers, plus a very large nuberof innternal specialized control
sources. . Plus the are FUNs, which allow you to combine two control
sources using one of a large number of mathematical equations to get more
complex and/or unusual results.
Now there are certainly pros and cons to every instrument that has been
made, and it may be that the K2000 didn't end up being your cup of tea.
But to make a statement that it is 95% sample playback and 5% synthesis
clearly shows that you had no inkling of the power under the hood of VAST.
It is possible with VAST to start with a basic sample and mutate or
mutilate it so that it no longer even remotely resembles the original
sound. Further, the amount of real-time control possibilities allows you
to breath a great deal of life into a sound, thus avoiding the static
quality so often found with typical sample playback instruments.
Notes
>VerySmooth (verys...@aol.com) wrote:
> On the EIV, I
>think they should give you a lot more outputs for that kind of price tag.
I totally agree....I don't know why these companies are not increasing their
samplers in this regard. I just paid $450 for an expansion module for my
S-760 to increase the outs from 4 to 8(it's a 4 D/A Converters, hence the
price).
But think about the enormity of things you could and perhaps would want to
do with a 128MEG sampler (a loaded EIV) in a studio....mixing...virtual,
etc. With this much muscle and with a lot of todays sample based music....I
can see having 16-20 Outs on a 128Meg Sampler.....why not? Hell, you're
already paying $5,000 or so...for the sampler, several more thousands for
the 128MEGS of RAM, what's another $1K to have 16 or 20 outs?
LM NOTES
VerySmooth
mutilate it so that it no longer even remotely resembles the original
sound. Further, the amount of real-time control possibilities allows you
to breath a great deal of life into a sound, thus avoiding the static
quality so often found with typical sample playback instruments. >
I totally agree with the statement. You can mutilate sounds with VAST big
time. And the K-2000 is more "living" that a plain sample playback
instrument.
Now let's make an experiment about that 95% / 5% question. Take the
factory sonic palette of a stock K-2000, those sounds that _do_ make the
sale. If you had to take out sample playback entirely from the K-2000, and
use only VAST on a sine wave to create all those gorgeous piano, choir,
rhodes, strings, pad & guitar sounds, would you be able to match more than
5% of the set? Well, you see. I was pretty correct on that number.
Processed sample playback is fine by itself. We are talking only about the
balance of synthesis horsepower vs. sample playback in the machine as
necessary to attain that "any sound, limited only by your imagination"
possibility. (Hence my previous question about taking a blizzard patch and
carving it into an acoustic grand.)
If a unit has little synthesis power (or strong one, but resulting mostly
in disharmonic timbres, as the K-2000 seemed to me - no offense) than you
need millions of CD-Roms to get it to produce that proverbial "any sound".
(Thus, it's not a viable option.) Now... the better/stronger/predictable
the synthesis engine gets, the fewer onboard samples one needs to attain
that possibility...all to the point where the synthesis engine is _so
good_ you perhaps don't even need any samples at all to start with, or
only a handful, and you can _still_ create any sound imaginable.
Well, that's the point where I'd start to get interested... :-) And, of
course 128-voice polyphony, as in the E-IV.
(I wonder, since Kurzweil helped E-mu create the E-IV piano sound, how
come they didn't ask for the 128-voice polyphony recipe in exchange... :-)
George
VerySmooth
>> synthesis.
> how do you arrive at these figures? you can make it 100% sample
>playback and 0% synthesis if you like... or it can be 100% synthesis >and
0% sample playback. it all depends on the particular program.
Easy. Imagine the K-2000 has no VAST at all, only sample playback. How
many percent of its current timbres would it be able to produce? 100%
No imagine it has no sample playback at all only VAST, operating on plain
sine waves. How many percent of its current timbres will it be able to
produce? 5%
Thus: sample playback 95%, VAST 5%. I'm telling you this puppy is a sample
player with some processing capabilities...
>> While this is still better than any Korg T or M or OW ever
>> made, it is far from being a synthesis engine that can take, say, a
>> blizzard sound and make it into an acoustic grand.
> well, at least it can go the other way... :)
I know, I did that... :-)
If you use the K-2000 for techno, to mangle sounds out of shape, it's The
Perfect Tool For The Task.
I, on the other hand seek a synth that will enable me to (re-)create any
sound I hear in my head. Thus, our priorities are rather different.
George
Doug Blackley
would be the Akai, but they have 3 new machines I hear are coming out
which will compete on price with the Emu. I own 2 Akai's, a samplecell, a
K2000 (and a 250 for that matter!), and have just bought a S-760 as well,
but the jury is still out.
A couple of comments on the K2000---it does not sound as good as the Akai
machines. The keyboard mag specs bear this out. The K2000 is noisy--the
internal fx processor is no use to me at all, and the non effected outputs
are still noisier than my other samplers. I have the keyboard version---I
was told that you could use 6 outputs at once---but you can't.
I work with sound effects some, and find Vast very limiting in a few
areas, such as assigning separate sounds in a program to separate outputs,
or panning every sample in a preset to a different location. The Akai's
are very good for this sort of stuff.
I almost sold the K2000 a few times, but I bought the orchestral
upgrade and am happy with the machine now.
I may sound like I'm down on the K2000---I'm not, really; I consider it
the best single keyboard/module made for the musician working with a small
midi setup. If, however, you have a larger type setup it does not compete
so well; the akai is a better sampler, the d-50 makes better d-50 sounds,
my old 1000 series Kurz modules in many case do acoustic sounds
better(IMHO), the moog in the corner sounds more like a moog, etc. If you
need all these things but have the budget for a single unit, then buy the
K2000. If you only need a sampler then buy a dedicated sampler like the
EMU or the Akai.
Chan Benson
: functions capable of modifying or adding to a basic sample or waveform,
: including 17 differnt types of filters! Name one other instrument that can
: make that claim - there is nothing that comes close!
According to a review in Sound On Sound, the new Emu's (e64 and EIV) have
at least 17 different kinds of filters. I thought the number of variations
was around a hundred.
-- Chan
Chan Benson
Scratch that last comment. There are 17 varieties of filters in the e64 and
EIV.
== Chan
KURZWEIL
>> Imagine the K-2000 has no VAST at all, only sample playback. How
many percent of its current timbres would it be able to produce? 100%
Now imagine it has no sample playback at all only VAST, operating on plain
sine waves. How many percent of its current timbres will it be able to
produce? 5%<<
I think that you have not thought out the concept of synthesis very well,
if you are making the above statement. It also shows you do not understand
VAST.
There are many different techniques of synthesis. Lets take a look for a
moment at what most people think of when they think of analog synthesis.
Most of the analog synths utilize what is known as subtractive synthesis.
That is, you start with some type of wave form, then you modify it, using
a variety of tools, such as envelopes, filters, LFOs, ASRs, etc. For the
most part, these tools are used to control pitch, timbre, and amplitude.
In general, the tools which control timbre (filters) take away from the
initial waveform, hence the name subtractive synthesis. There are also a
few other tools such as ring modulation, pulse width modulation, and sync
mod oscillation which can add partials, so they are not actually
subtractive. For the moment lets just talk about subtractive synthesis.
Now VAST is capable of performing subtractive in the exact same way you
would do it on an analog synth. You have the same types of tools available
for modifying the sound in real time, and in many cases you have more than
what is found on the old analog synths. For instance, you have more types
of filters than on the old synths - 17 in all!. An old synth might have 3
or four LFO shapes. VAST has 26!
But the biggest difference is in the source building block for the sound.
The old synths would usually have from 2 to half a dozen basic waveforms
from which to start. But the K2500 has 56 different basic waveforms, plus
approx 76 sample instruments, and an assorted variety of manipulations and
variations on those samples! Now just because you start with a string
sample instead of a sawtooth waveform, that DOES NOT mean that you still
are not using synthesis to create a sound, if you are using synthesis
techniques. The only thing that has changed is that you are starting with
a multi-root sample instead of a simple waveform. But the process is
identical. And that is what is so cool aboutVAST - you can use true
synthesis techniques on samples in addition to using them on waveforms.
Of course, lets not forget the other synthesis techniques I mentioned
above. VAST has pulse width modulation and hard sync oscillation. Although
we don't have ring modulator DSP, you can essentially emulate it using
other DSP functions. Plus there are many other DSP functions (a total of
60 in all) that I have not even mentioned, all capable of being used to
modify the sound in one way or another
What about other synthesis techniques developed over the years?
Additive synthesis: VAST can do it, albeit in a somewhat limited manner
(the more partials you stack up, the fewer voices of polyphony you have to
work with). But you can creat a sound where you control each partial
independently.
FM synthesis: Well, we actually had this in there, but we had to take it
out because Yamaha would not licence it to us, and they still own the
patents. However, you can achieve remarkably similar end results by using
the Shaper and Wrap DSP functions.
L/A synthesis: Basically, taking a waveform and attaching it to a sampled
attack transient. It can easily be done.
Wavetable synthesis: Again, it can be doe faitrly easily, although once
ahgain, it can use up a lot of your polyphony, depending on how
complicated you make things.
Etc, etc, etc.
I teach a class on the basics of synthesis, and I can easily go in and
demonstrate a great majority of basic synthesis techniques using nothing
but the K2000.
This is not to say that there aren't unique sounds that can be made on a
specific instrument - every instrument has its own characteristics, from
the way its filters work to what parameters the enevelopes are capable of.
But there is no question that in terms of its power to make sound, VAST is
first and foremeost and incredibly powerful synthesizer.
Hope this clears things up for you.
Nick Batzdorf
1. Without taking sides, the K2000 and K2500's biggest advantage over the others
in your list is their versatility. They are very sophisticated synthesizers as
well as samplers, while the others are samplers.
2. The words in your maths lesson are great; your logic, however, is faulty. All
programmable synthesizers are capable of creating an infinite number of sounds.
There's also an infinite number of sounds they can't do.
But mainly, who cares?! Why would you want to start with a blizzard patch to
create an acoustic grand? The person from Kurzweil is absolutely right to get
annoyed about the remark that it's merely a sample-based instrument. I'd be
annoyed, too, if I'd spent all that money, time, and effort developing something
that sophisticated, only to have it summarily dismissed.
Not that there's anything particularly wrong with sample playback instruments. I
use my K250 and 1000PX every day.
3. Have you heard the Yamaha VL-1? The acoustic modeling synth that uses no
samples? It's unbelievable, especially if you have a wind controller. You'd start
to get interested, but then you'd hate it - only 2 voices max, usually only 1.
Maybe Yamaha should go talk to E-mu as well?
- Nick Batzdorf
editor, Recording magazine
VerySmooth
synthesis techniques on samples in addition to using them on waveforms.
first and foremeost and incredibly powerful synthesizer. >
(Wide grin...)
David, I see you decided you'll sell me a sample player for a synthesizer
no matter what... :-) the K-2000 is a synth, the sky is green, and if I
claim the opposite I can't tell VAST from a saucepan. :-)
The K-2000 is a sound _transforming_ sample playback unit, not a
synthesizer that can create any sound on demand. It can match a target
timbre by getting 95% close with sample playback, and then going the
remaining 5% on VAST. In other words, it can synthesize a dulcimer from a
guitar sound. It won't synthesize it from a blizzard patch. It's sample
playback that does 95% of the work inside the K-2000.
Now... obviously not many users care, so why do I do? Because sample
playback as we kow it now can't deliver "any imaginable sound". It could
deliver only if we had every possible sound on CD-Roms. Well, every
possible sonic permutation, at 44.1 kHz sampling rate, 16-bit depth, and,
say 10 seconds max duration limit, would take how many CD-Roms? A few
megabillions... a dead end street. Sample playback is only a temporary
sonic crutch while working towards a real synthesis solution.
< I teach a class on the basics of synthesis, and I can easily go in and
demonstrate a great majority of basic synthesis techniques using nothing
but the K2000. >
True, the K-2000 can mimic 33 synthesis methods, I used it. But... if
_any_ of those implementations were a true, wholesome synthesis
solution... - who would need the 32 others? :-)
George
Jon Drukman
: Easy. Imagine the K-2000 has no VAST at all, only sample playback. How
: many percent of its current timbres would it be able to produce? 100%
say what!? maybe you don't use it the same way i do, but i like to
take the boring old samples in the K2000 ROM (drum sounds, saw waves,
whatever) and twist them with VAST. without VAST, i would be able to
produce maybe 1% of the timbres i use in the k2000.
: No imagine it has no sample playback at all only VAST, operating on plain
: sine waves. How many percent of its current timbres will it be able to
: produce? 5%
hmm, JUST sine waves? well, you've got a DX7 there, i guess. if you
opened it up to include the VAST saw & square, i would be happy for a
LONG time. the fact that it CAN operate on actual samples is just
bonus frosting...
i think you're defining "timbres" differently... yes, there are
samples in the k2000, and they're OK. but they're just RAW MEAT for
the VAST GRINDER... the VAST engine is what *makes* the synth, without
it it'd just be a decent-but-not-outstanding sampler.
KURZWEIL
offered detailed explanations of exactly how the K2000 functions as a
synthesizer, but you seem to refuse to call that synthesis. You seem to
discount the typical definitions ofsynthesis.
So I ask you - how do YOU define synthesis, and what instruments that
exist conform to your definition? So far your only example is to talk
about a "blizzard" patch, but I have yet to hear you talk about any
technical aspects of what you seem to think that synthesis should be.
VerySmooth
< Without taking sides, the K2000 and K2500's biggest advantage over the
others in your list is their versatility. They are very sophisticated
synthesizers as well as samplers, while the others are samplers. >
Yup, you have a bunch of synthesis methods on the K-2000 to create a bunch
of timbres.
I can contend with much less, too... like, a single little synthesis
method that can produce every imaginable timbre on the planet... :-)
This is supposing of course that the K-2000 purports to be a full-blown
synth. Or if it purports to be rather a full-blown sampler, than the
E-IV's polyphony. Or if it purports to be both a full-blown synth and a
sampler, than both expectations.
That's why I called it a "sample player with sound processing
possibilities". :-) More open-ended on the input side than a
ROM-exclusive Morpheus, but perhaps a bit less versatile in the synthesis
side.
< Not that there's anything particularly wrong with sample playback
instruments. I use my K250 and 1000PX every day. >
I use the K-1200 every day, too.
(As a master controller. :)
Good, reliable scratchpad.
< Have you heard the Yamaha VL-1? The acoustic modeling synth that uses no
samples? >
Nope...while it had its golden era, I was on a coffee break, but the unit
sounds probably a lot better than its specs do. What's it like, 126 voices
less than an E-IV? Ya-hoo-hay! Yamaha plans probably to launch a
200-channel cassette PortaStudio, and they couldn't think of any other way
to introduce it... :-)
< Why would you want to start with a blizzard patch to create an acoustic
grand? >
I used this only as an example to illustrate that the VAST engine can't
create the timbres falling between these two very different sounds. So how
you get to the one that's right there halfways if you need it? You load it
from CD-Rom. What did you end up relying on? Sample playback. How often
will that happen? 95%. Et voila.
Now if all you ever want is piano and strings you will have a 100% success
rate. But for that you got your 1000PX don't you? :-)
George
VerySmooth
< without VAST, i would be able to produce maybe 1% of the timbres i use
in the k2000. >
If you were to use only sample playback? Why, you could resample 100% of
those VAST timbres and load into K-2000 RAM as plain samples...
>>Now imagine hte K-2000 has no sample playback at all only VAST,
>>operating on plain sine waves. How many percent of its current >>timbres
will it be able to produce? 5%
< hmm, JUST sine waves? >
Yes, just sine waves, so you can really see what VAST can do on its own,
without sample playback. Okay VAST, there you are on your own, show us
what you can do! I know it sounds 95% better if you use the same VAST
algorithm on a piano wave, but then it is not VAST that's causing the
quality jump, it's simply that you added sample playback.
The K-2000's VAST mouse rides on the back of the SAMPLE PLAYBACK elephant.
As they cross the bridge, the mouse says: "boy, we are rumbling, aren't
we!" :-)
George
mohan krishnan
>synthesizer that can create any sound on demand. It can match a target
>timbre by getting 95% close with sample playback, and then going the
>remaining 5% on VAST. In other words, it can synthesize a dulcimer from a
>guitar sound. It won't synthesize it from a blizzard patch. It's sample
>playback that does 95% of the work inside the K-2000.
You do realise, that, simply from a mathematical perspective, a synthesis
engine that could actually "make any sound" would be terribly complicated.
It's kind of like a Fourier series, which will mimic any periodic
function, as long as an infinite number of its terms have been
calculated. The same is true in synthesis. To get an accurate
representation of any sound with synthesis, you need to synthesize a
function which mimics the sound (or a sample of it) to a high degree of
accuracy. The only way you can do this is to either adjust thousands
upon thousands of parameters or to limit yourself. Sample playback
chooses the later, by allowing you only to model sounds that are similar
to samples already available. Virtual modelling chooses the latter, but,
it adjusts the parameters for you, and limits itself down to managability
by only choosing to synthesize certain kinds of instruments (guitars,
strings, woodwinds, or analog synths, what have you) and only allowing
you to edit macro-parameters that are symbolic of instrument
characteristics (ie you change reed length or something, and the synth
changes many many parameters, based on the one that you've changed.)
Either way, if you made a synth that is capable of synthesizing any
sound, it would do the exact opposite of what you want; the only way to
use it would be to play the presets, as programming it would be so hard
that it would take even a development team either years or a cheating
scheme to actually make any patches for it. Furthermore, it would
probably only have about five patches, because the patches themselves
would be huge in order to contain all the parameters you'd need to adjust.
This isn't a flame, or at least its not meant to be. I'm just saying
that K2000 or no K2000, I don't think this business that's being passed
around of making a synth that "makes a blizzard into a piano" is a
realistic request.
mohan krishnan
That is to say, it isn't a realistic request if you want it to sound good.
Theoretically, FM ought to be capable of just that thing, if you had an
FM synth with thousands of operators instead of just four or six. That's
a guess. Does anyone know if FM actually ahs that property (that is,
increasing quality of output with increasing number of ops, to the
theoretical maxima of an infinite number of ops creating the real thing?)
Jon Drukman
: The K-2000 is a sound _transforming_ sample playback unit, not a
: synthesizer that can create any sound on demand.
oy vey... this is just semantic disingenuousness. NO box can create
"any sound on demand." but we still have pieces of equipment that we
refer to as "synthesizers". and what's the difference between a
"sound transforming sample playback unit" and a synth anyway?
show me where it is engraved in stone that a synth must be able to
create "any sound on demand."
anyway, we've been down this road before... by any REASONABLE
definition of "synthesizer", the k2000 not only qualifies, but
qualifies under many different areas (LA, additive,
subtractive... there are even some algorithms inside that sound
suspiciously like FM).
: Now... obviously not many users care, so why do I do? Because sample
: playback as we kow it now can't deliver "any imaginable sound".
neither can any of the real-world subtractive, additive, FM,
wavetable, LA, or PM synthesis devices currently in existence. but we
still use them where appropriate.
i take it then that you don't consider a DX7 to be a synth, since it
can't deliver "any imaginable sound"?
VerySmooth
< NO box can create "any sound on demand." >
None of those I tried so far, that's for sure... :-)
< what's the difference between a "sound transforming sample playback
unit" and a synth anyway? >
A synth is an instrument to whose sonic output synthesis contributes more
than sample playback.
A sample playback unit is an instrument to whose sonic output sample
playback contributes more than synthesis.
< show me where it is engraved in stone that a synth must be able to
create "any sound on demand." >
It is my expectation towards a unit that claims to be "limited only by my
imagination".
As far as I can tell, my imagination can still produce timbres by the
bushel a K-2000 can't.
But I see already, [kurz...@aol.com] saying, it's my imagination that
needs a repair... :-)
< i take it then that you don't consider a DX7 to be a synth, since it
can't deliver "any imaginable sound"? >
It is a synth, according to what I said above, but not a strong one I
would consider to buy.
A TX-816, however is a different story. If it only came with a
FM-resynthesis program, I think it _could_ pretty much create just about
any sound on Earth.
George
Eric Moon
VerySmooth <verys...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>It is my expectation towards a unit that claims to be "limited only by my
>imagination".
>As far as I can tell, my imagination can still produce timbres by the
>bushel a K-2000 can't.
>But I see already, [kurz...@aol.com] saying, it's my imagination that
>needs a repair... :-)
No, your expectations do. What I'd advise is that you learn Csound --
it's a sound synthesis programming language in which you can produce
literally *any* sound you can imagine -- given enough programming time.
That's why it's used so much in academia. You're not going to find a
synth that can do everything, because "everything" hasn't been thought of
yet.
--eric
--
"Eeeoo ded hwauopsy mectoph, mectagin dupwoxin, moi phoi wops eppepepekin
gitto phepsy demego doi aga din a doich demoi aga donc heedey obectdee _
(~~\(Eric Moon)/~\_/~~~~\__/~\(klu...@u.washington.edu) doohuena."/~~\/ )
\__)---------(_______________)----------------------------------(_____/
VerySmooth
synthesis engine that could actually "make any sound" would be terribly
complicated. >
Hi Mohan,
I do. And just like you, I doubt, too, that the bulky additive machine you
describe would be a viable solution.
IMHO, in order to make a full-blown synth, it's necessary to:
1.) Select a controllable synthesis method that can create the most sine
waves, (= the biggest chunk of sound) from the smallest set of parameters
2.) Put enough such parameters sets (6? 8? 10?) into a machine to get an
"any sound possible" synthesis engine
3.) find a way to convert 16-bit samples into that format
4.) build the unit with decent polyphony.
It's not that you can't buy that, today; it just takes 4 units... :-)
George
VerySmooth
< So I ask you - how do YOU define synthesis, and what instruments that
exist conform to your definition? >
My definition of a synthesizer:
An instrument to whose sonic output synthesis contributes more than sample
playback. (Or something third.)
My definition of an "ideal" synthesizer.
A machine I can sit down at, and carve the sound I just imagined.
How it does it, I couldn't care less.
George
P R Bishop
very amusing, or perhapse simultaneously exasperating, thread. My dreams
have presently been filled with blizzards, pianos, and strange little
people chanting: "One hundred percent, ninety-five per cent, five percent,
sample playback, K2000, synthesis, VAST, Amen!" I think they're a
religious group or something. Oh, christ, the monitor is humming again. I
really need to get it fixed. I'm sorry I'm wasting your time. But you see,
it was kind of what you did to me, and probably a few others without the
warm companionship of a killfile, so complaints will be fruitless.
Suffice to say, as a disinterested (and, by now, uninterested) outsider
and amature sound manipulator (considering quitting--this is what I will
have to face the rest of my life if I don't), I find Kurzweil's posting to
be the most informitive, consise, logical, precise, convincing . . . add
any compliments to that you like. As for Mr. 100%/95%/Blizzrad--I
sincerely believe you belong on the 'net, as you are certified
psychotic--dogmatic as well, making communication with you moot. Your just
the kind of person we need in this world to start jihads, wars, hate
groups, sitcoms. . . all the necesary things that make us eager to find
some enlightened guru person to tell us that the is a possible mode of
transendiance. And, to boot, you're hillarious. Now, any sane individual
would have let the discussion go. But you have single handedly secured
this thread's perpetuation--mostly through digression and occasional
insipid tirade.
To those who responded because they simply can't bear to see a concept
disfigured so, drop it. Thank you for your dedication. Still, he doesn't
get it, and never will, because he doesn't care to. Thank you for some
lovely knowledge. I will cherish it, so it wasn't completely in vain. Only
mostly so. You obviously have principles. So, form someone concearned
about guys like 95%/100%/Blizzard, use them in the next elections--don't
vote fascist. We're bad enough off with idiots running the world. His type
would make an other world war inevitable. And, I might add, over something
innane, like preference in music synthesis methodology. This does hurt one
if one cannot laugh about it. Or take a nap. I think now I will chose the
latter. I have a headache.
disregards,
Paul (Why do I get the feeling there will be more on this thread?) Bishop
P R Bishop
writes:
>oy vey... this is just semantic disingenuousness. NO box can create
>"any sound on demand." but we still have pieces of equipment that we
>refer to as "synthesizers". and what's the difference between a
>"sound transforming sample playback unit" and a synth anyway?
>
>
Simple. . . .one is a euphamism created for the purpose of a principleless
rant, one is an operating word for the device the verbose and meaningless
ehuphamism refers to, i.e., they are one and the same.
Of course, this was clear before I expounded on it.
My take? This is all so very boring. . . , well, except for the synthesis
technology synopses. . . Thanks again.
Malte Rogacki
In article <42nmj6$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, VerySmooth writes:
>
> < that is what is so cool about VAST - you can use true
> synthesis techniques on samples in addition to using them on waveforms.
> <<< >>> in terms of its power to make sound, VAST is
> first and foremeost and incredibly powerful synthesizer. >
>
> (Wide grin...)
>
> David, I see you decided you'll sell me a sample player for a
synthesizer
> no matter what... :-) the K-2000 is a synth, the sky is green, and if I
> claim the opposite I can't tell VAST from a saucepan. :-)
>
> The K-2000 is a sound _transforming_ sample playback unit, not a
> synthesizer that can create any sound on demand.
*Any* sound on demand? Well, this probably means that there are no
synthesizer around at all, at least in *your+ book...
> It can match a target
> timbre by getting 95% close with sample playback, and then going the
> remaining 5% on VAST. In other words, it can synthesize a dulcimer from
a
> guitar sound. It won't synthesize it from a blizzard patch. It's sample
> playback that does 95% of the work inside the K-2000.
Well, I once did synthesize a clarinet from the "wood bar attack" sample.
The final sound had nothing audible in common with the source. Does this
count?
> True, the K-2000 can mimic 33 synthesis methods, I used it. But... if
> _any_ of those implementations were a true, wholesome synthesis
> solution... - who would need the 32 others? :-)
Bohoho! Who needs FM synthesis when we have subtractive synthesis?
Am I the only person under the impression that George is trying to troll
us?
--
Malte Rogacki ga...@sax.sax.de
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't forget to TURN ON THE SYNTHESIZER. Often this is the reason why
you get no sound out of it." (ARP 2600 Owner's Manual)
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Whitley
> j...@www.opcode.com writes:
>< without VAST, i would be able to produce maybe 1% of the timbres i use
>in the k2000. >
>
>If you were to use only sample playback? Why, you could resample 100%
>of those VAST timbres and load into K-2000 RAM as plain samples...
And you dare to consider yourself a synthesist after this statement?
Your solution is not unlike saying that a live butterfly is equivalent
to one you've killed and nailed to a board. With a timbre `alive' in
its own synthesis model you have the opportunity for real-time control
of the synthesis parameters. I.e. you incorporate significant
expressive control. This is core to every acoustic musical
instrument, as well as many synthesis models, especially analog.
Resampling a timbre removes all opportunity for expressive control --
thus killing the sound as far as many musicians are concerned.
One of the obvious reasons for the resurgence of analog's popularity
is the nature of the sound involved. But another, and the entire
reason for the creation of modern analog (or virtual analog)
instruments such as the OB-Mx and the Nord Lead, is expressive
control. Yeah, your patch on your JV-1080 may sound fat, but it's
also _flat_. No real analog-style knob tweaking allowed! And greatly
limited expressive control.
Now, expressive control of this sort may not be what you're interested
in musically. That's fine. But many, many electronic musicians out
there are continually searching for different ways of controlling
sound and expressing themselves. This is one of the reasons that
synth manufacturers investigate new synthesis models, hybrid
synthesis, physical modelling, and so forth. Each allows TWO things:
a unique perspective on how sounds are manipulated in that model, and
a gamut of timbres that are readily created under that model.
Together, these form the so-called `characteristic sound' of a
synthesis model.
Ostensibly, it's possible to have a model that allows a very
convincing piano sound to be generated, but where the control of that
sound is NOTHING like what you'd expect from a real live Steinway. To
synthesists, this may be a boon, to a piano player, a plague. And to
each his own...
-- John
P R Bishop
(VerySmooth) writes:
>How it does it, I couldn't care less.
You have, yet again, contradicted yourself.
KURZWEIL
An instrument to whose sonic output synthesis contributes more than sample
playback. (Or something third.)<<
VAST can absolutely do this. By using various DSP functions, you can start
with any type of sound, whether it be waveform or sample, and transform
it until it is unrecognizable from its initial form.
>>My definition of an "ideal" synthesizer.
A machine I can sit down at, and carve the sound I just imagined.<<
It can also do this. Just because you start with a sample instead of a
simple waveform does not mean that you could use a syntheis technique to
"carve the sound" you hear in your head.
You have not been able to come up with any remotely detailed or accurate
reason to substantiate your misguided claim the the K2000 is 95% sample
playback and 5% synthesis.
Jon Drukman
: If you were to use only sample playback? Why, you could resample 100% of
: those VAST timbres and load into K-2000 RAM as plain samples...
no i couldn't. you surely know the difference between a static
snapshot of a modulating sound and being able to control the sound in
real time? it's like sampling an analog synth with the filter
sweeping - you're stuck with that one sweep forever (and it will sweep
differently depending on which note you strike on the keyboard).
: The K-2000's VAST mouse rides on the back of the SAMPLE PLAYBACK elephant.
: As they cross the bridge, the mouse says: "boy, we are rumbling, aren't
: we!" :-)
i think it's foolish to evaluate them separately. like i said, if you
made a synthesizer that had ONLY the VAST architecture and the ability
to work on sawtooth, square and triangle waves, you'd already have an
incredibly powerful synth. sample playback is just a bonus. :)
--
Name: Jon
Email: j...@cyborganic.com
Web: http://www.cyborganic.com/People/jsd
Jon Drukman
: A synth is an instrument to whose sonic output synthesis contributes more
: than sample playback.
: A sample playback unit is an instrument to whose sonic output sample
: playback contributes more than synthesis.
by your own definition then the k2000 is a synth because the
"synthesis factors" can easily contribute more than the sample
playback. i don't know why you have such a hard time admitting this.
your famous "piano into blizzard" example seems to prove the point.
(i know, it won't go the other way, but your definition doesn't seem
to require it. perhaps you'd like to qualify it?)
mohan krishnan
>describe would be a viable solution.
It would be a monster. :) But aren't mathematical extensions of reality fun?
>
>IMHO, in order to make a full-blown synth, it's necessary to:
>
>1.) Select a controllable synthesis method that can create the most sine
>waves, (= the biggest chunk of sound) from the smallest set of parameters
I'm not quite sure what you mean here; I take it this would entail something
like Additive or FM synthesis?
>
>2.) Put enough such parameters sets (6? 8? 10?) into a machine to get an
>"any sound possible" synthesis engine
You mean modulate them against each other like in FM or layer them like
in sample playback?
>
>3.) find a way to convert 16-bit samples into that format
I fear the problem would be that this would be the only realistic use of
such a machine. If that were the case, then what's the advantage over
a sample playback subtractive type of synth?
>
>4.) build the unit with decent polyphony.
This is a must...New technologies like virtual modelling aren't going to
break through without polyphony. Even 16 is okay, but 2 is really pushing
it. Except in special cases, like the Nord Lead, where it's okay, because
you don't really need the polyphony too much.
>
>It's not that you can't buy that, today; it just takes 4 units... :-)
Yeah, I suppose so. The problem is that this kind of method would give
you lots of realism on a per-note basis, but I don't think it would solve
the problem of expressiveness. If you want to make the sound less static,
I don't see how you can do that with this kind of architecture. If a
synth could take on some of the control over notes a violin, for instance,
has, then it would sound a lot better. If it could apply that control
to user created sounds, then I'd be in love....
VerySmooth
>>IMHO, in order to make a full-blown synth, it's necessary to:
>>
>>1.) Select a controllable synthesis method that can create the most
>>sine waves, (= the biggest chunk of sound) from the smallest set of
>>parameters
< I'm not quite sure what you mean here; I take it this would entail
something like Additive or FM synthesis? >
Perhaps a combination of both. FM synthesis operator pairs, summed
together additively...
< You mean modulate them against each other like in FM or layer them like
in sample playback? >
Yes. Sounds like a working solution to me...it sure result in less data.
It's kinda using the FM pairs as additive synthesis macros. As long as we
have a good FM resynthesis routine that breaks any incoming sample into
those pairs, you get the ability to edit the individual building blocks of
the sound.
And since all sounds would consist of similar FM operator pairs, you could
define morphing rather easily, for one... like the old GDS, you could have
the unit morph between two completely different timbres depending on MIDI
note number and/or velocity
Now _that_ would be a helluva instrument.
George
VerySmooth
< no i couldn't. you surely know the difference between a static
snapshot of a modulating sound and being able to control the sound in real
time? >
There are filters in samplers, too. Programmable, modulable, you name it.
< i think it's foolish to evaluate them separately. like i said, if you
made a synthesizer that had ONLY the VAST architecture and the ability to
work on sawtooth, square and triangle waves, you'd already have an
incredibly powerful synth. :) >
Something like an Obie Matrix 12, I guess. I think it was advertised, too,
as "being limited only by our imagination". With all the truckloads of
synths out there that are "limited only by my imagination" since the Korg
Poly 800, I wonder how come I have still to rely on Avalon 2.0. to get
anywhere.
George
VerySmooth
>>It is my expectation towards a unit that claims to be "limited only >>by
my imagination". As far as I can tell, my imagination can still >>produce
timbres by the bushel a K-2000 can't.
>>But I see already, [kurz...@aol.com] saying, it's my imagination >>that
needs a repair... :-)
< No, your expectations do. What I'd advise is that you learn Csound <--
it's a sound synthesis programming language in which you can <produce
literally *any* sound you can imagine -- given enough <programming time.
That's why it's used so much in academia.
Now you are talking. Is it stronger than Avalon 2.0, I use now?
What computer, what price, what speed (once learned), and where do I mail
the check?
George
VerySmooth
Being able to mangle a sound beyond recognition is not necessary a sign of
a major synthesis engine. Any garden-variety synth can twist a sound out
of shape, including a DX-7 if you set the Pitch EG, LFO's, and misc.
paraphernalia to values crazy enough.
The red light of "sample player, overall" (and those 95/5% numbers) lights
up in my head when I notice after a bunch of programming sessions that the
best _quality_ change in a sound (as opposed to mangling it) is obtained
still not by any of the elaborate VAST synthesis functions, but by calling
up another waveset. (Shades of D-50 here).
The only truly fast and efficient synthesis approach I found while
tweaking the K-2000 was moving the sample start and end points around.
While that resulted something in truly new and and strikingly nice
timbres, it is not a method one can rely on to predictably synthesize any
sound upon demand. But it is worth 5%, all right.
George
Miron
this nearly seems off -topic in here - but
could anyone tell me the US price of the K2500,
please.
is this 4 stereo channel effects card available yet ?
thanks - miron
__________________________________________
miron deyssenroth
mdey...@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de
__________________________________________
KURZWEIL
It seems clear that no matter what concise explanations and logical
arguments are put to you, you are determined to continue believing what
you want to believe. It is also clear that you did not spend any real time
exploring what VAST is capable of, and in addition, you seem to have a
very limited concept of what the definition of the word synthesis is, when
it comes to creating sound.
All the best of luck to you in your efforst to find an instrument that
will do what you would like it to do, when it comes to creating sounds.
Consider this my last post on this subject.
VerySmooth
are versions for everything from the PDP-11 to PowerPC, and they're all
free. It's highly optimized, so you're probably not going to find a
faster language, though it's still rarely a real-time deal. And it's
free. >
Thank you for the info. I'll catch a copy, pronto.
(The ultimate would be an Atari Falcon version, but if it's _that_ good,
hey I'll _buy_ a PowerMac to run it.
George
Eric Moon
VerySmooth <verys...@aol.com> wrote:
>klu...@u.washington.edu writes:
>
>< No, your expectations do. What I'd advise is that you learn Csound <--
>it's a sound synthesis programming language in which you can <produce
>literally *any* sound you can imagine -- given enough <programming time.
>That's why it's used so much in academia.
>
>Now you are talking. Is it stronger than Avalon 2.0, I use now?
>What computer, what price, what speed (once learned), and where do I mail
>the check?
It's become pretty much the standard synthesis language out there; there
are versions for everything from the PDP-11 to PowerPC, and they're all
free. It's highly optimized, so you're probably not going to find a
faster language, though it's still rarely a real-time deal. And it's
free.
Finding it can be a bit tricky. Source and Mac versions seem to be at:
ftp://cecelia.media.mit.edu/pub/Csound/
PC versions have been spotted at:
ftp://ftp.maths.bath.ac.uk/pub/dream/
...but that site seems to be down right now.
Good luck!
--e
Jon Drukman
: < no i couldn't. you surely know the difference between a static
: snapshot of a modulating sound and being able to control the sound in real
: time? >
: There are filters in samplers, too. Programmable, modulable, you name it.
it is still not even in the same ballpark. you can't possibly claim
any sort of knowledge of synthesis techniques if you don't understand
the difference.
: Something like an Obie Matrix 12, I guess. I think it was advertised, too,
: as "being limited only by our imagination". With all the truckloads of
: synths out there that are "limited only by my imagination" since the Korg
: Poly 800, I wonder how come I have still to rely on Avalon 2.0. to get
: anywhere.
take your imagination in for a tune-up. and stop taking marketing
claims so seriously. do you sue the beer companies whose products
fail to get you dates with hot babes in tight sweaters?
what are they supposed to say, "lots of neat sounds but you'll have to
think real hard to come up with something we can't do"? it lacks
panache.
Jon Drukman
: The red light of "sample player, overall" (and those 95/5% numbers) lights
: up in my head when I notice after a bunch of programming sessions that the
: best _quality_ change in a sound (as opposed to mangling it) is obtained
: still not by any of the elaborate VAST synthesis functions, but by calling
: up another waveset. (Shades of D-50 here).
so that makes the D-50 a sample player and not a synthesizer in your
book?
VerySmooth
book? >
Are you kidding? With _this_ few samples? It's a synthesizer :-)
< take your imagination in for a tune-up, and stop taking marketing
claims so seriously. Do you sue the beer companies whose products
fail to get you dates with hot babes in tight sweaters? >
I don't drink beer. Miss.
(BTW if you guys could only see the young, 65EE model I'll do a hobby
boudoir shot with this Saturday... _you_ would buy beer... :-)
I bought the K-2000 only because a genius wrote once in a vaporware-stage
NAMM report that the unit has largely expandable sample RAM (to load all
my own sounds) and 96 VOICES OF POLYPHONY. _That_ was the only thing I
cared about.
But the K2K arrived and I found out the truth. I tried VAST then... I
ended up playing the presets. In 4 (or so) weeks, the unit crashed anyway.
The K2K's only contribution to my life was that this was the first device
ever that _hurt_ me (a lot), by losing my music.
Would _you_ be impressed by any device after a showing this dismal? If it
were a $200 flea market gizmo, I'd throw it in the corner, and say, "the
heck, I got what I paid for!" But for a $2500 item (what it cost at
purchase time) it was a rather expensive fructus of Citrus limonia. :-)
(Plus it's -urggghh!- heavy to lift to throw... :-)
I learned the lesson from this, First of all, I _never_ (repeat: never)
buy anything off the shelf anymore, only second hand. This way I know it's
past the burn-in stage which is where my K2K majestously fell on its face.
Secondly I _always_ consult with owners whether the unit is really past
beta-stage. (Guess why I didn't buy an E-IV yet in spite how seriously I
consider it?) And third, I separate real specs from hype almost with a
laser beam, no one lulls me into sleep with promises about endless
gratification, anymore. ("If so and so unit's synth engine _could_ deliver
every sound, would it need onboard samples? Next.")
In one word - I'm Synth Buyer From Hell. :-)
Have a nice day,
George
Malte Rogacki
In article <4325mj$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, VerySmooth writes:
>
>
> The only truly fast and efficient synthesis approach I found while
> tweaking the K-2000 was moving the sample start and end points around.
> While that resulted something in truly new and and strikingly nice
> timbres, it is not a method one can rely on to predictably synthesize
any
> sound upon demand. But it is worth 5%, all right.
Well, forgive me, but you're either stupid or ignorant or both.
Sebastian Nyberg
>I don't drink beer. Miss.
Well, that explains it all then.
:)
Base
--
Sebastian Nyberg | bas...@snakemail.hut.fi
Helsinki University of Technology | http://www.hut.fi/~baseman/index.html
Department of Computer Science | @ <-- Kalevi's secret parrot sign 666
s951...@babel.ee.up.ac.za
>< No, your expectations do. What I'd advise is that you learn Csound <--
>it's a sound synthesis programming language in which you can <produce
>literally *any* sound you can imagine -- given enough <programming time.
>That's why it's used so much in academia.
>Now you are talking. Is it stronger than Avalon 2.0, I use now?
>What computer, what price, what speed (once learned), and where do I mail
>the check?
On this subject, anyone know where to get Csound? The maths.bath (or
whatever) site seems to be out of whack at the moment.
Thanks,
Warren P. duP.
Ray Richards
>The K-2000's VAST mouse rides on the back of the SAMPLE PLAYBACK elephant.
>As they cross the bridge, the mouse says: "boy, we are rumbling, aren't
>we!" :-)
You obviously have no idea of what you're takling about. The K2000/2500 is by
FAR the most powerful synth on the market today and would continue to be
despite the absence of samples.
rich...@magi.com
http://infoweb.magi.com/~richards/
Jim Rumberg
>FAR the most powerful synth on the market today and would continue to be
>despite the absence of samples.
The most powerful and expandable synth (audio workstation) on
the market today is the Kyma/Capybara system from Symbolic
Sound Corporation. Check out their web site:
http://www.prairienet.org/arts/symbolic/eighth.html
This system is not for the timid.
Jim
Anthony Ruggeri
>>The K-2000's VAST mouse rides on the back of the SAMPLE PLAYBACK elephant.
>>As they cross the bridge, the mouse says: "boy, we are rumbling, aren't
>>we!" :-)
Can someone inform me of why this is even argument? Aside from physical
modelling, almost every synth ever manufactured was sample playback of one
kind or another (whether VCO or DCO). If one were to drop a sampling engine
into a Minimoog and give it 64 megs of samples instead of a few waveforms,
would that suddenly turn it into piece of junk? I fail to grasp the
reasoning...
--> arug...@netaxs.com \/\ techno / ambient / house / IDM
Dei Sub / Anthony Ruggeri \/\ Dei Sub Studios / PA, USA
http://www.netaxs.com/~aruggeri \/\ -=time to stop listing gear=-
Miron
AKAI generation S2000 S3000XL - they rock !!!
btw - if s.o could deliver US prices for these it would be great....
Hook, John L.
> In article <42okkf$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, verys...@aol.com says...
>
> >The K-2000's VAST mouse rides on the back of the SAMPLE PLAYBACK elephant.
> >As they cross the bridge, the mouse says: "boy, we are rumbling, aren't
> >we!" :-)
>
> You obviously have no idea of what you're takling about. The K2000/2500 is by
> FAR the most powerful synth on the market today and would continue to be
> despite the absence of samples.
>
Guys, change the title of this thread. It's been going on forever
and I dont I have ever seen anything about the Akai or Emu.
How about "K2000 scam, snth, or Legend"? ;-)
Jim H.
Miron
> and I dont I have ever seen anything about the Akai or Emu.
true - but wait for the new AKAi generation (S2000,S3000XL,S3200XL) they have
slots for 16MB sample ROM like the K series so there's more common ground for
developing patches.