Sped up Vinyl Technique -> Sampler

J.Daniels wrote:actually ive been doing that recently quite abit. Time stretch the sample, then resample it. and then stretch the new sample back to the original tempo. It gives a really grainy messed up sound.

can someone elaborate on this? i've done my searching/researching, but i'm still not quite confident if i have the concept correct. i have a 8 disc cd changer to sample from so i don't have the capability of a record player to speed up what i want to sample. if i already have the sample on my mpc at normal play speed, do i
1. speed up the sample using time stretch and save the sped up sample.
2. then re-timestretch the sped up sample back to a slower/original tempo?
3. could i also instead of re-timestretching, pitch down the sped up sample? what would be the difference between restretching slower and pitching down?

if this is possible with my setup, how many times do i speed up the sample? twice as fast (2x)?

is this method possible with my setup? or is the only way to achieve this result to actually have sped up vinyl before it goes into the MPC? after the sped up vinyl, do you pitch down or time-stretch slower the sample in the MPC? i'm doing this all so i can maybe get a little more lofi grit.

my bad if this is so many questions, i just some homies to shed some light

The point is, the sample has to be stretched in any kind of way to give it that grainy effect. Be it by timestretching are transposing. With transposing u also have to deal with the pitch. This can be negative or a positive side effect, depending on what kind of result ur looking for. I'd suggest to just experiment with it. Maybe u come across a few nice suprises.

I'd never compaired those two methods, so I don't know if any type of sonic changes occur if u go the timestretch route compaired to the transposing method.

well first off, what are you trying to accomplish? The main purpose originally for speeding up a record was to capture more sample since earlier samplers had limited sample time capabilities. If you are trying to just get a lo-fi sound there are many other methods to accomplish this. What happens with the above method is that the time stretching is that small gaps are introduced in the audio. The more you time strech the more apparent they are. Time stretching back to the original tempo basically will not close the gaps but play the overall sample at a different BPM. I personally am not too much of a fan of this since like I said, there are other methods to get a grainy sound.

i'm aware that this method was used to get more sample time out of old samplers with limited space with the perks of having a grainier, raw, grittier sound.
althought i have 32mb sample time, i think that this is a good method to know even if there are other methods of getting grainier drums. (if you can share, that'd be cool too.) i'd also like to know how to work with limited tools and mb space to learn from the roots up.

so if you timestretch and get the gaps in between the sample, how did the sp1200 users go about it? i couldn't find a step by step way this was done; is it sped up vinyl, then pitched down on the sp1200, or timestretched down on the sp1200?

No matter what machine is doing the time stretching there are still limitations of how much the audio can be altered. For grit, the easiest method is reducing the bit rate (12 bit). Also compression combined with Equing can significantly alter the sound of drums. layering real clean drums with real lo fi drums, plug ins (izotope vinyl is free and emulates a record). Pro tools has bit reduction plugins. You can also bounce to tape then resample. Theres a sh*t load of ways to get that grime out

leonard-lee wrote:sped up vinyl, then pitched down on the sp1200

Bingo. SP1200 doesn't have timestretch.

My homie back in the day (I'm talking 91ish) would run his records at 78RPM, take the sample, and then pitch the sample down in the 1200. You can emulate that by simply pitching the sample up inside your sampler (4 semitones up is about the same as 33rpm->45rpm, 33rpm->78rpm is an octave and some change, maybe like 15 semitones up) resampling that, and then pitching it down.

Timestretching gives a very different type of sound (its more grainy and grating - pitching is more smooth and dark). I'm sure its useful, but I haven't found a use for it.

But the reality is that there are no right answers. Music is art. Timestretch it, pitch it, whatever. Do what you feel. Make your own sound.

mp3 wrote:

leonard-lee wrote:sped up vinyl, then pitched down on the sp1200

Bingo. SP1200 doesn't have timestretch.

My homie back in the day (I'm talking 91ish) would run his records at 78RPM, take the sample, and then pitch the sample down in the 1200. You can emulate that by simply pitching the sample up inside your sampler (5 semitones and 20 cents up is about the same as 33rpm->45rpm,

fixed it for you

poundaproblem wrote:No matter what machine is doing the time stretching there are still limitations of how much the audio can be altered. For grit, the easiest method is reducing the bit rate (12 bit). Also compression combined with Equing can significantly alter the sound of drums. layering real clean drums with real lo fi drums, plug ins (izotope vinyl is free and emulates a record). Pro tools has bit reduction plugins. You can also bounce to tape then resample. Theres a sh*t load of ways to get that grime out

i am aware of this 12 bit reduction, but do i **** with the hz and should i keep the low,medium,high option on low for that lo-fi? i was thinking about lowering the hz to match that of the sp1200, but i heard that the resample takes forever and isn't as great as it is. something about losing frequencies that a real 12bit sampler like the sp1200 would retain.

mp3 wrote:

leonard-lee wrote:sped up vinyl, then pitched down on the sp1200

Bingo. SP1200 doesn't have timestretch.

My homie back in the day (I'm talking 91ish) would run his records at 78RPM, take the sample, and then pitch the sample down in the 1200. You can emulate that by simply pitching the sample up inside your sampler (4 semitones up is about the same as 33rpm->45rpm, 33rpm->78rpm is an octave and some change, maybe like 15 semitones up) resampling that, and then pitching it down.

Timestretching gives a very different type of sound (its more grainy and grating - pitching is more smooth and dark). I'm sure its useful, but I haven't found a use for it.

But the reality is that there are no right answers. Music is art. Timestretch it, pitch it, whatever. Do what you feel. Make your own sound.

fixed it for you [/quote]

the normal rpm for a record player is 33 rpms yeah? what do you exactly mean about resampling? do you mean actually using the resample feature, or saving the pitched up sample, then pitching down that saved sample?

Been doing this since '86 with my Technics 1200 & a Casio SK-5 keyboard.

leonard-lee wrote:the normal rpm for a record player is 33 rpms yeah? what do you exactly mean about resampling? do you mean actually using the resample feature, or saving the pitched up sample, then pitching down that saved sample?

33 is normal for almost all LPs made in the 60s or later.

I mean resampling. If your sampler can't resample, then you will have to find another method of doing it, for example using a tape deck or your DAW sample editor to record the pitched up sample, then sampling it back into the sampler, then pitching it down. Just saving the sample won't work.

peterpiper wrote:

mp3 wrote:

leonard-lee wrote:sped up vinyl, then pitched down on the sp1200

Bingo. SP1200 doesn't have timestretch.

My homie back in the day (I'm talking 91ish) would run his records at 78RPM, take the sample, and then pitch the sample down in the 1200. You can emulate that by simply pitching the sample up inside your sampler (5 semitones and 20 cents up is about the same as 33rpm->45rpm,

fixed it for you

Really? I always thought it was about 4 semitones and 10 cents?

mp3 wrote:
Really? I always thought it was about 4 semitones and 10 cents?

I'm pretty sure. When you record (sample) a 33 rpm vinyl at 45 rpm you'll have to tune it down 5 semitones and 20 cents. If you want to figure it out remember that 33 isn't 33 but 33 1/3 which means 33,333333333 rpm.

Another thing to think about:
Lo Fi comes in place when the A/D Converter is hit by frequencies it can't handle, thats why old samplers with their limited samplingrate create that strange noisey sound that we all call "lofi".

Samplingrate of 44,1 can handle frequencies up to 22050 Hz, so the whole freq.range of the human ear can be recorded an played without artifacts.
The old gear often got lower samplerates so they cant handle the highest freq. and create artifacts. Especially when the freq. of the input signal is way more than the converter can handle. This is the case when you use 45 rpm. All the freq. of the signal are shifted to a higher freq.

So what can you do to get artifacts when you got something like a 2000xl or newer MPC that only can sample with 44,1?
You'll have to raise the speed even more to get more artifacts.
One "trick" is to record the sample to your DAW, change the samplerate of the sample to 96kHz (you can also record the sample at 96kHz), change the speed to something like +12 or +18 or higher and sample this thru the analog in of your MPC.

Pitch it down in the MPC and hear the result.
But dont expect a sound as raw as the SP1200. The "newer" MPCs got antialiasing filters that will avoid some of the dirt and there is nothing you can do about it

peace

**** all that processing man
For the best dirty/grainy results nothing beats a vintage sampler.

i think i get it...
to mp3's response, all in my 2000xl, i would take the sample in my mpc, pitch it up appropriately to match that of 45rpm, or 78rpm, save that sample. i should then resample that saved, pitched up sample then pitch that down. the key is the resampling step comes after pitching up, and before pitching down in the mpc, is that pretty much the case?


to pete the pipe,
i should resample my file to 96khz in the mpc, record it as an audio file in my daw, then pitch it up in my daw. then, i play the resulting file in my daw into the record in of my mpc, and pitch down in the mpc. the only step im confused about is where i change to 96khz, does that happen in the daw, or in my mpc before it gets recorded?
in order to sample from daw to my mpc, i should connect the 1/4" from my inbox's main cr output to the analog in yeah?


once again, good looks guys, i understand there are so many easier ways to get what i want, but i think its crucial to understand how the old school heads handled it.

leonard-lee wrote:
once again, good looks guys, i understand there are so many easier ways to get what i want, but i think its crucial to understand how the old school heads handled it.

The old school head handle it the easy way. And the easy way is:

Menco wrote:**** all that processing man
For the best dirty/grainy results nothing beats a vintage sampler.

@menco: you know that you dont have to tell me that. I own a 950 a 900 a TX16w and a FZ1. Next step is the SP but......damn money........yesterday a SP12 went for 505 Euro on ebay and I was close to spend the money I put beside for summer holiday with my wife on that thing. This must be gear-addiction.

peace