Chopping on the 1000. Stereo to Mono

DJ-T wrote:when sampling in stereo,understand that this Frequency is higher in modulation (Stereo), than (Mono)amplitude modulation. This is were you get the AM Radio (mono sound) and FM (Stereo sound) So the two are different in sounding. It's just hard sometimes for the ear to hear unless .

Listen to a AM Station, Sounds are more muffled. Listen to FM Station,and sounds is alot clearer and cleaner. Without getting so Techky

completely and utterly unrelated topics.

AM stands for Amplitude Modulation. this is where the carrier wave (which is a radio wave - inaudible as it is an electromagnetic wave, not a sound wave) is modulated in level (or amplitude, hence the name) according to the signal level of the voice/music/whatever you hear on the radio.

FM stands for Frequency Modulation. this is where the carrier wave is modulated in frequency according to the input signal's level.

the only reason FM is in stereo is because you can get more bandwidth with frequency modulation as it is less affected by the level of the carrier wave signal. AM on the other hand works by definition using the level of the carrier wave, so they made it mono to get a decent, audible signal.

sorry for that, just had to put you straight.

stereo is unnecessary and you fail to realize why i'm saying this.

the sound doesn't have to be mono in the final mix. you can copy the track in your DAW and turn one into a different kind of sound by adding effects, compressing it different, pulling the volume down. do this gently and you have a subtle stereo. do it hard and you have a huge stereo.

i'm saying the original stereo field is not worth preserving if you can just recreate it better for your personal mix later on. otherwise, you have to mix into your already stereod sample, which is like being given a coloring book with outlines instead of just a blank paper.

Antonym wrote:the sound doesn't have to be mono in the final mix. you can copy the track in your DAW and turn one into a different kind of sound by adding effects, compressing it different, pulling the volume down. do this gently and you have a subtle stereo. do it hard and you have a huge stereo.

I believe this should be called panned mono technically, which most "stereo" is nowadays.
Sampling in stereo is preferable when you have true stereo, that is an instrument or ensemble recorded with two or more mics intended to recreate the full wide / depth experience of the room it´s recorded in, or a drum break where the seperate drums have been panned and processed to form the illusion of width and depth.
Any one off sample not containing proper or "true" room / space information is better to treat the way nym states above.

Yeah, a true stereo field can not be re-created once it has been summed to mono. True, you can pan things and manipulate them in the mix when you multitrack and do a final mix, but if you want the sample itself to maintain its original stereo field, you must sample it and keep it in stereo.

i'm not talking about the original stereo field, like if there are x instruments playing mostly through 1 channel and maybe something else in the other.

in that case, just sample 2 monos
but in the case where you have a violin that's n both channels but obviously miced differently (as heard by difference in room noise, volume, etc in left/right speaker). there's no need to capture both, as it's nothing that cannot be replicated easily enough through dx plugins.

i'm talking about a better stereo field more suited to your mix. it might take patching with air coupled with different compression techniques, but the stereo that results is completely convincing if you do it right.

i don't sample stereo because i don't like being forced to use what i consider 2 different samples simultaneously, it's why i dont like using a kick chopped from a break that has a hat built in it. i want to say when to use a hat, i don't want my kick to decide that for me. you understand?

Antonym wrote:i want to say when to use a hat, i don't want my kick to decide that for me. you understand?

spoilt as a child, were you?

if only haha

maybe then i'd have more formal music training
to this day my parents dont support this shit

bloody right too! go and get a proper job at walmart.

naaah dude
no matter how desparate you are
never work at the w
no health care for their workers, all the money just goes to the surviving family of the dead guy.

<hmmm plan forming: split up nym's parent's, marry his mum, force nym to work at Walmart, bump off nym, reap rewards>

hey nym, i'm planning a trip to your part of the country, fancy meeting up? i'd love to meet your parents.

<secret snigger>

most old records some sounds are on the left some are on the right as we all know .....I just pick and choose which side I wanna sample....and if it sounds tight in stereo I ll sample it in stereo .....but I wish the os for the 2500 aswell as the 1000 had stereo chop shop aswell as stereo to mono conversion like the mpc2000 it would save some time


word

ryssen wrote:Sorry dbz!!! I presumed it was a typo by you and not having the MPC in the same appartment as the computer I didn´t check with reality before I blurbed.

I myself very seldom sample in stereo and I presumed that it was the straight trim extract that kept the sample in stereo as stereo samplers whine about the tedious proces of chopping in stereo. All I´ve ever done in the Edit widow in Slice mode is merging and splitting slices.
So I talked out of my ass and should shut up, as should the lazy people complaining about the tediousnes of stereo chopping, as dbz showed it´s a piece of cake.

Please accept the apologies from a former cocky ass russian.

it's all good mate.
i found it out one day by accident. some samples i chopped and converted sounded very different to other parts i had extracted. thats when i found out the auto chop converts to mono.
it could get tedious if you were extracting 64 chops but still quicker than extracting from the trim page.
like i said i usually convert to a mono program and extract any sounds i want in stereo on their own to save time. like if i had a drum break but the first beat has a horn stab as well then i might keep that first slice in stereo and convert the rest to mono.

I sample stereo sources in stereo and Mono's in mono.. I don't see any point in sampling something from a stereo mix to mono, unless you want to sort something out. In that case, ofcourse I understand you. But i dont agree on what you say about sampling everything in mono... That's just not using the machine to the fullest. And you do have more control over a "True" stereotrack in your mix than a mono. You can always convert a stereo track to 2 mono's... It's way more flexible... That's a fact. (That being said, I use Protools)..

dude that's what i'm saying in the first place w/ the whole sampling 2 mono tip...

Antonym wrote:dude that's what i'm saying in the first place w/ the whole sampling 2 mono tip...

You gonna have to specify that.. As I see it, I just disagreed with what you where saying regarding this Mono/Stereo-sample-topic.