Sampling Question

mr_debauch wrote:

m56p87 wrote:
Im having peter Gabriel x Fairlight flashbacks right now...

Maybe, haha... I cant recall any specific songs by them though... one guy who is famous (therefore you might have heard it) who did a lot of field recording (though, later than we were doing it...) is amon tobin. He did an album called foley room... it's worth checking out... he has some great recording ideas that he used to create the sound for that album.

Hell yeah, Amon tobin is in my "electronic musician experimenting genius" category for me. Along with Richard devine, mouse on mars, autechre etc... I remember I was in like 7th grade when I heard praying mantis...Off the chain! Everytime I listen to stuff like that I want to start making music with formulas and shit, lol. But sadly I don't create like that... I've always had this compulsion to makes sounds I've never heard anything like before... Sounds you enjoy the same?

m56p87 wrote:
Hell yeah, Amon tobin is in my "electronic musician experimenting genius" category for me. Along with Richard devine, mouse on mars, autechre etc... I remember I was in like 7th grade when I heard praying mantis...Off the chain! Everytime I listen to stuff like that I want to start making music with formulas and shit, lol. But sadly I don't create like that... I've always had this compulsion to makes sounds I've never heard anything like before... Sounds you enjoy the same?

I have been listening to amon tobin since the late 90's... I have never been to any of his shows up until last year for the concert where he was touring with what I call "the hyno-cubes" that was probably the craziest visual thing I have ever seen in a concert or show. Now, his music IMO wasn't nearly as cool as the older stuff... but the visuals totally made up for it.

The formulas he used sounded way ahead of it's time... from a technique perspective... I mean, imagine early 2000 or so... what do you have? a PC with some software... or maybe you had an mpc like the 2000 or 3000... it would have been way difficult to achieve the technical sound complexity at that time with that gear... now we have soft synths easily available and affordable that can make complex sounds in 10 minutes.

Recording audio or field recording in particular is something I started doing back then with portable tape recorders... and those little 128 meg mp3 players... the sound was trash... I couldn't believe when the zoom h4 came out, I felt like they made that product for me personally. Now I had a small enough piece of gear not tied to cabling... and I could bring it into abandoned condemned tunnels... sewers.. the whole 9.

All that is off topic in relation to the mpc60 and maybe even the 3000 because those recordings tend to be too long for the sample time in those machines.. but that's me and the types of sounds and ambiance I like to record and use.. but recording drums (like the new dirty drum breaks kit that tutor just put out) is the perfect way to use live drum recording you took for use on those machines.

dtirer wrote:I'm just getting into making my own samples. I'm not so interested in sampling from records, as I am in sampling live sounds. Like drums, or random percussive noises.

In this scenario, would one record directly into the MPC with a mic (or multiple mics)? Or does it make more sense to record into the DAW of your choice, get the mic balances if using multiple mics, and then sample from the computer into the MPC?

How would this be done in the days of the MPC 3000? if you wanted to record a live snare, with a few mics. I assume you'd record them in to Pro Tools, but then how do you get them onto the MPC?

For simple percussive sound fx, why bother recording to a DAW and then back to the MPC? You can record in stereo with a matched pair of condenser mics thru preamps and direct to the analog inputs. I mean, you don't need more than 2 mics to record most simple sound fx or drum hits in the studio assuming it is well prepared for sound recording.
For field recording, like Mr. Debauch said, the Zoom portables are great. I still use my Sony portable DAT recorder for that purpose and then sample to the MPC thru SPDIF.

Well my DAW is my 'portable equivalent'. I can take my laptop anywhere. Isn't that the same as recording into the zoom? either way it becomes digital no?

And the though the MPC is portable. I can't exactly plug it in on the street and sample something

moral97 wrote:

dtirer wrote:I'm just getting into making my own samples. I'm not so interested in sampling from records, as I am in sampling live sounds. Like drums, or random percussive noises.

In this scenario, would one record directly into the MPC with a mic (or multiple mics)? Or does it make more sense to record into the DAW of your choice, get the mic balances if using multiple mics, and then sample from the computer into the MPC?

How would this be done in the days of the MPC 3000? if you wanted to record a live snare, with a few mics. I assume you'd record them in to Pro Tools, but then how do you get them onto the MPC?

For simple percussive sound fx, why bother recording to a DAW and then back to the MPC? You can record in stereo with a matched pair of condenser mics thru preamps and direct to the analog inputs. I mean, you don't need more than 2 mics to record most simple sound fx or drum hits in the studio assuming it is well prepared for sound recording.
For field recording, like Mr. Debauch said, the Zoom portables are great. I still use my Sony portable DAT recorder for that purpose and then sample to the MPC thru SPDIF.

some dope idea's in this thread - if audiophile mint recording is not an issue def sample into the MPC via a decent pre.

+ 1 million on Amon Tobin - anyone hear the '2 fingers' LP he co produced for UK rapper Sway? most progressive hip hop I've heard in years.

deepah84 wrote:Without opening again the debate of analog vs digital and even less talk about the mystic of the 3k's a/d converters that some believe in i would just say that to preserve the entire integrity of a digital signal when transferring it between two digital machine, i personally prefer to stay in the digital path.

clint246clint wrote:I would argue that if you've spent all that money on an MPC3000, sample directly into it or at least transfer DAW samples into it using the analog inputs. The MPC3000 sound is largely a product of it's A/D - D/A conversion process. But maybe you didn't buy it to use as a sampler, so it's your decision. deepah84 takes the opposite view from myself with a valid reason, but there's no right or wrong way to go.

I'm with deepah84, I have always been taught to stay in the digital domain as long as possible, once there.

No point in converting from a digital signal, to analogue, and then back to digital again, which is a destructive process, especially with older 16 bit AD convertors, to get some possibly magical sound out of the AD convertors.

I don't really believe that a 18+ year old 16 bit AD and DA convertor design can really be that special, compared to more modern well designed convertors.

You would have to do a scientific side by side blind test to convince me otherwise.

I would record into your DAW, edit/process/etc. in the DAW, then transfer to the MPC via a digital format (CF/Zip/SPDIF/etc.).

moral97 wrote:For simple percussive sound fx, why bother recording to a DAW and then back to the MPC?

As Seed78 said, so you can process the sound, add effects, combine with other sounds, edit more tightly, archive it, etc., before loading into the MPC.

SimonInAustralia wrote:I don't really believe that a 18+ year old 16 bit AD and DA convertor design can really be that special, compared to more modern well designed convertors.

really? I know you know your shit, and you own all those old machines in your location info... Where's the logic in this?

As Seed78 said, so you can process the sound, add effects, combine with other sounds, edit more tightly, archive it, etc., before loading into the MPC.

I believe moral97 said simple percussive sound..

m56p87 wrote:

SimonInAustralia wrote:I don't really believe that a 18+ year old 16 bit AD and DA convertor design can really be that special, compared to more modern well designed convertors.

really? I know you know your ****, and you own all those old machines in your location info... Where's the logic in this?

The logic is that the MPC3000 AD convertors are standard off the shelf AD convertor chips that were designed over 18 years ago, in those past 18 years AD convertor design has improved greatly.

How can you not see that logic?

What logic is telling you that is not true, and that the MPC3000 used some magical off the shelf AD convertor technology, that was more than 18 years ahead of its time, and still sounds better than quality AD convertors designed and manufactured today?

As Seed78 said, so you can process the sound, add effects, combine with other sounds, edit more tightly, archive it, etc., before loading into the MPC.

I believe moral97 said simple percussive sound..

It doesn't matter how simple the sound is, you lose the ability to edit it right down to the sample level visually, do any kind of sound shaping via eq, archive it along with your computer data, etc., along with better sounding AD conversion, these advantages are really nothing to do with how complex or simple the sound is.

Where is the logic in giving up that flexibility, just for some street cred about sampling directly into 18+ year old AD convertors, rather than a quality AD convertor designed and manufactured in the last couple of years.

SimonInAustralia wrote:

m56p87 wrote:

SimonInAustralia wrote:I don't really believe that a 18+ year old 16 bit AD and DA convertor design can really be that special, compared to more modern well designed convertors.

really? I know you know your ****, and you own all those old machines in your location info... Where's the logic in this?

The logic is that the MPC3000 AD convertors are standard off the shelf AD convertor chips that were designed over 18 years ago, in those past 18 years AD convertor design has improved greatly.

How can you not see that logic?

What logic is telling you that is not true, and that the MPC3000 used some magical off the shelf AD convertor technology, that was more than 18 years ahead of its time, and still sounds better than quality AD convertors designed and manufactured today?

As Seed78 said, so you can process the sound, add effects, combine with other sounds, edit more tightly, archive it, etc., before loading into the MPC.

I believe moral97 said simple percussive sound..

It doesn't matter how simple the sound is, you lose the ability to edit it right down to the sample level visually, do any kind of sound shaping via eq, archive it along with your computer data, etc., along with better sounding AD conversion, these advantages are really nothing to do with how complex or simple the sound is.

Where is the logic in giving up that flexibility, just for some street cred about sampling directly into 18+ year old AD convertors, rather than a quality AD convertor designed and manufactured in the last couple of years.

It's has nothing todo with "street cred", It has todo with what I consider to be a romantic workflow. But If all this is so old and archaic why do you own any of these machines.... I mean clearly you'd be better off with a DAW 100% of the time if I follow your line of thinking... Id take the personality of older AD any day, instead of transparent and sterile modern day AD. I own a computer... I know how it sounds too..

I get if your not into yourself, that's totally legitimate. But how your wording things seems to imply that your opinion is somehow beyond or more legitimate than someone else's that likes older a/d like myself... Which if found really bizarre considering you own like 5x the older A/D gear I do, why not just use a daw or new hardware that supposedly has better everything?

I'm not saying everything has to old school 90s, or there aren't reasons to upgrade to new hardware/software. But if you buy an old school sampler, why not make the most of its unique personality?

btw...apparently our A/D converters have improved so greatly, that we are now emulating bad/older A/D with our new amazing A/D that's some logic!

m56p87, i understand your point of view and mostly agree with it, but let me share an example of one of my friends with you...

This guy also has A LOT of vintage gear. TR-808, MPC60, SP1200, S950, S1000, several synths (Korg MS-10, Prophet 5, Octave The Cat), etc.
Sounds like vintage audio heaven, right?

However, this guy rarely samples into these machines, he does everything on the computer, then transfers the sounds to the machines via zip drives, floppy disks, midi dump, etc.
Despite his love for the old machines and using them for sequencing and controlling other gear, he will always stay in the digital world with his sounds if possible.

It's just a matter of opinion/preference i think...

PS: He constantly tells me to sample with my apogee duet into the computer and copy the sounds to my machines since it would sound so much better that way...

@jibber

If he wants todo that, then more power to him. Although I must admit I don't really get it. My problem was only with how Simon broached the subject, that the only reason to use the ADC is some sort of reputational street credit bullshit instead of someone actually enjoying the quality it gives their sounds. I'm a big supporter "to each his own", I just don't like when someone acts their opinion is superior.

@simon

If this is just all Internet misinterpretation on my part then I apologize. But how I read your post and particuarly your response just seems considscending to people like me who love older a/d, I agree in the sense of keeping your options open. But I'm not gonna bash someone either way if whatever they are doing helps them make the music they want to make.

m56p87 wrote:It's has nothing todo with "street cred", It has todo with what I consider to be a romantic workflow.

Your choice, never said anyone has to do things the way I prefer them, just giving my opinion on the way you could and should do it, pointing out that you give up a lot of flexibility in all areas by refusing to use a DAW in the sample recording process.

Street cred, romantic workflow, same thing in my opinion.

m56p87 wrote:But If all this is so old and archaic why do you own any of these machines.... I mean clearly you'd be better off with a DAW 100% of the time if I follow your line of thinking... Id take the personality of older AD any day, instead of transparent and sterile modern day AD. I own a computer... I know how it sounds too..

No, I am talking about the process of sample recording, the processes of making beats on the MPC and in a DAW is clearly different, and possibly the main reason why some people choose the MPC style, rather than doing it 100% in a DAW.

If you compare quality DAW interface AD conversion now, compared to 18 years ago, it sounds better, the MPC uses the same AD conversion technology as 18 year old DAWs.

Again, I would have to take part in a blind listening test, using samples recorded into the MPC3000 vs samples recorded into good quality modern AD convertors, to believe there is some sort of special magic in the MPC3000 AD convertors.

I am not sure exactly what this magical personality is that the MPC3000 44.1KHz/16bit AD convertors are supposed to give to the samples recorded into it, and how it is any less transparent and sterile than a modern good quality AD convertor. I think it needs to be tested to actually confirm this.

Without actually testing it, maybe you are just going on ancient hype, and I am not really sure that you know exactly what the characteristics the MPC3000 AD convertors are actually imparting on the sound, without detailed testing and comparisons yourself.

Have you actually tested the sound quality from the MPC3000 DA output, comparing samples, from the exact same source, recorded into the MPC3000, versus samples recorded into good quality modern DAW convertors?

I think that your desire for this romantic workflow, and belief in opinions voiced years ago about how special the MPC3000 sounds, is blinding you to the logic of incorporating a DAW into the sample recording process.

m56p87 wrote:I get if your not into yourself, that's totally legitimate. But how your wording things seems to imply that your opinion is somehow beyond or more legitimate than someone else's that likes older a/d like myself... Which if found really bizarre considering you own like 5x the older A/D gear I do, why not just use a daw or new hardware that supposedly has better everything?

My opinion is my opinion, it is what I believe to be the best way, and yes, I obviously do believe that my opinion is beyond and more legitimate than someone else.

If I thought that someone elses opinion was beyond mine, and more legitimate than mine, I would accept that my opinion was not the best, and take on that other persons opinion as my own. You have not mounted a strong enough argument for me to change my opinion.

You asked what my logic was, I explained it to you.

I think that limiting yourself to the MPC AD conversion and sound editing/processing/etc. capabilities, in order to fit to some romantic MPC workflow idea, and suggesting that everyone else should do the same, to be bizarre.

I never said that a DAW has better everything, it has better sample recording, effects, and editing capabilities, I don't know how you can find solid logic to argue that.

Obviously the process of making beats in a DAW is not the same, and some find the MPC style of workflow better than drawing it onscreen in a DAW.

m56p87 wrote:I'm not saying everything has to old school 90s, or there aren't reasons to upgrade to new hardware/software. But if you buy an old school sampler, why not make the most of its unique personality?

You seem to be saying that with an MPC3000 it has to be old school 90s from start to finish, that since you own an old school sampler that you have to complete the whole workflow inside that old school sampler.

That is great if that is what you choose to do, not everyone has to work the same way, or share the same opinions.

btw...apparently our A/D converters have improved so greatly, that we are now emulating bad/older A/D with our new amazing A/D that's some logic!

Haha, if you are referring to the Ren having the older MPC sound modes, that is such a gay marketing ploy by nuakai, designed to suck people in with the same old school hype.

Just goes to show, if you believe that, that you can make modern AD/DA conversion sound just like your magical old MPC3000 AD/DA conversion, simply with a software algorithm and modern AD/DA convertors.

The MPC60 and SP1200 sound different because they are lower sample rate and bit depth, MPC3000 is just early 44.1KHz/16 bit AD/DA, nothing special.

I suppose that 'good sounding' is subjective. Something could be better suited for a supposedly 'poorer' sounding quality, if that's the user's end goal

@simon

I'm not claiming magic makes the ADC sound good, but the extremely quantifiable ability to overdrive the inputs without is sounding like pure shit! Something modern ADC cannot do at all. That combined with the style of beat making and sequencing is what I find romantic. Doing what you can with a limited set of tools in front of you. Besides I'm an ADD mother fuxker and I hate working in the "limitless" environment that a DAW presents. Once agin that's purely my opinion and what allows me to create in what feel as the most efficient and enjoyable way.

You seem to not get all, that I'm not arguing against your way of doing things. All I'm saying is do you and let others do them. Right now your opinion is superior to mine simply because of better sound quality? Then I guess people should stop shooting 35mm photos.. Shooting 16mm films, transferring their finished tracks to tape reels... Or anything else that isn't the most recent high quality transparent method of production..

I'm not preaching that people should set arbitrary limitations based on 90s hip hop or anything like that. I'm stating that people should do what makes them happy, and as dumb as it may sound to you.. Overdriving my analog inputs makes me happy.

m56p87 wrote:Right now your opinion is superior to mine simply because of better sound quality?

Not just possibly better sound quality, which as I said a number of times, I have not tested and compared, so do not know for sure.

m56p87 wrote:Then I guess people should stop shooting 35mm photos.. Shooting 16mm films, transferring their finished tracks to tape reels... Or anything else that isn't the most recent high quality transparent method of production..

No, I am comparing the possible differences in sound quality between older 44.1Khz/16-bit AD convertors to more modern 44.1KHz/16-bit AD convertors, but it is not just about the sound quality, it is also the differences in available tools to edit, process, and archive the samples.

Using your style of analogy, my argument would equate to comparing old chemical formulations of 35mm and 16mm film stock versus newer and more modern chemical formulations of 35mm and 16mm film stock, in terms of vision/sound quality, along with comparing

This is not an analogue versus digital debate in terms of sound quality, or even a lower resolution/depth digital format versus higher resolution/depth digital format debate.

The MPC3000 is not an old school 20KHz/12-bit sampler, like the MPC60/SP1200 (or whatever samplerate they are), with an older and lower resolution digital sound format that they use, that automatically gives it a certain coloured sound. It is using exactly the same sample rate and bit depth as the modern convertors, and does not sound that coloured and non-transparent to begin with.

In recording samples and transferring them from a DAW, you are only replacing the sample recording part of the overall process, you are only changing the AD convertors, the sound still comes out the MPC DA convertors.

m56p87 wrote:I'm stating that people should do what makes them happy, and as dumb as it may sound to you.. Overdriving my analog inputs makes me happy.

Not dumb at all, just one way to do it, just not as flexible (editing/processing/archiving), and possibly not as good sounding, as going in through a DAW.

Overdriving the inputs is a totally different story, that has not been mentioned until now, and has not really been the real point of your argument in terms of sound quality that I can see, but it is a valid reason to go through the MPC input circuitry if that is what you are after.