Why is My Hardware Sampler Sounding Better Than My Software Sampler!? Same Samples!..

The Greening · 28th August 2006, 06:11 AM

This makes NO logical sense to me at all. I've been planning to sell my Roland MV-8000 and use a combination of Sequencer + Battery for electronic drum tirggering. Before selling, however, I wanted to insure that I wasn't truly losing anything.

1. Made a sequence
2. Loaded up the ideal samples in the sampler
3. Put the exact same sequence on the computer, loaded Battery

Both are perfectly in time. Both sound substantially different. I thought maybe the converters on the soundcard were making a difference, so I recorded out of the soundcard and then back in...no dice.

This is a logical impossibility!!! These are the same sounds being tiggered from the same sequence. What is the missing component? Do hardware samplers have some sort of built in compression/EQ curve on the output buss!? Seriously, it sounds fuller, more crisp, and generally more inspiring. I've read about "MIDI Timing" in these forums...those are refering to the tightness of the groove, and not the actual sounds though, I assume. Anyway, the seqences are not the issue. They play back the same.

Please throw out suggestions if you've been in this situation. I still WANT to sell the sampler because I could use the money towards other gear -- but I'm not going to compromise the sound (I'm not looking to run Battery through a bunch of effects just to get to where the Roland is naturally -- unless there is more going on under the hood of the MV8000 not being mentioned).

All help appreciated,

Will

toolstudio · 28th August 2006, 06:43 AM

Same experience here, that's way I moved back from softsynth and kontakt to
MPC3000 and my hardware synth.

Instant musical happieness.....

wolfgang

bcgood · 28th August 2006, 06:53 AM

I've tried both and I feel hardware sounds better as well, (I have an Akai Z4). To me it's the same thing as software the UA 1176 software not sounding as good as the real thing, hardware is just typically better at doing what it was designed for. I kind of think of it like a Sony playstation's graphics looking better and running better than the same games I play on the computer but maybe that's a bad comparison. I just think that an outboard unit that is designed to specifically do something is going to sound better than a computer program trying to emulate it...

bcgood

H-Rezz · 28th August 2006, 07:13 AM

The ideal situation if it ever arises is that someone make a softsampler with the same capabilites as Machfive, Kontakt etc in a stand alone box with it's own convertors but have the ability to sync to the sample accurate clock that softsamplers do inside a DAW, that will be the best case scenario.......

I agree that stock standard Samplers like Akai's, Emu's etc still sound better because of their dedicated convertors with algorithms to match , but where they fall over is that they have to be programmed using sluggish midi messages that aren't that tight especially compared to frame accurate softsamplers , so you do get time shift which is a bitch for those of us who layer then track lay the layered sounds on seperate tracks , any movement in time will cause a flam to layered sounds , this is totally random so there is no point trying to figure it out ! Softsynths can be stacked,layered and then tracked back to audio with no timing issues , so your phase correlation is always where you left it !

Obvioulsy better convertors on your DAW will inprove that sound of your softsynths/Sampler , coupled with a great sounding D.I. into a great sounding PRE and you have upped your tone again and given your sound a polished sheen it could not have had in the virtual domain .....

So the question is can one put up with the slop of midi for a better instant sound or treat the sound later for the desired effect .....???

BTW , the MPC is another kettle of fish , i'm speaking for those of us that use DAW's to sequence and prefer that way of working ....

**TonyBelmont** · 28th August 2006, 09:55 AM

I know why... But I'm not telling you.

SUPADUPA · 28th August 2006, 10:26 AM

same here I went back to my Akai's after kontakt ...
there are a few things that kontakt can do that my Akai's can't ..
But I write music with my hardware samplers ...
I find I just end up tweaking endlessly with kontakt ...

H-Rezz · 28th August 2006, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyBelmont

I know why... But I'm not telling you.

Hey Tony , just tell me i won't tell the others

28th August 2006, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H-Rezz

Hey Tony , just tell me i won't tell the others

He's already told me, But I swore not to tell YOU.

The Greening · 28th August 2006, 09:41 PM

Hey, it's okay to share with the group. It's about time this got out. Be my friend .

Or die!!

OHA · 28th August 2006, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H-Rezz

Obvioulsy better convertors on your DAW will inprove that sound of your softsynths/Sampler ,

The old Akais, didn't sound as good as todays soundcards in terms of converter qualities. Still they did something to the sound that isn't so easy to get in software, especaly with drums. More "smack" and punch in the old Akais, even if its the same sample..

Having said that I use soft samplers 90% of the time because it's 1000 times faster to get new sounds into than my old trusty mpc3000 (witch I still love..).

OHA · 28th August 2006, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OHA

Having said that I use soft samplers 90% of the time because it's 1000 times faster to get new sounds into than my old trusty mpc3000 (witch I still love..).

Like I use plugins instead of hw many times because of speed/recalls.. You find workarounds for the sound..

dlmorley · 29th August 2006, 11:00 AM

I have constantly been fruistrated with software samplers. Practical yes, but I also end up relying on my old boxes

MPC60
Roland S-750.Nothing sounds as fat except for my.....
Fairlight III. Alas has a boot problem, but it#s fabulous.
Yamaha A5000. Super practical with lots of features. Not quite as good sounding as the above but better than my software samplers..

I have yet to enjoy using software as much either, so sure they have more features and integrate better (and usually access loads of libraries), but for creating music with, I am heading back to hardware more and more. Same with sequencers. I love the features of software, but I am more focused and efficient on the MPC60 or my Yamaha QX3.

johndough · 29th August 2006, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyBelmont

I know why... But I'm not telling you.

One of the most important topics and you bow out????

You know what... Even the workstations with 128mb of rom sound better to me than the software stuff. I gave it its fair try but it just doesnt doesnt cut it. Dont get me wrong some stuff is great (b4, vsl, etc) but some is horrid.... Akoustic Piano is weaker than a 199 yamaha keyboard..... Most stuff to me sits in between.... Not bad but not great and the hardware just sounds better.

I just cant understand why. How can a 15gig software library sound worse than its 128mb hardware counterpart??????? It should destroy it.... I dont get it......

H-Rezz · 29th August 2006, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

He's already told me, But I swore not to tell YOU.

popmann · 29th August 2006, 02:17 PM

Ask yourself this question: when has software EVER sounded as good as hardware equivalents?

sedohr · 29th August 2006, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by popmann

Ask yourself this question: when has software EVER sounded as good as hardware equivalents?

in the voice of Horatio Cane, hands on the hips: "you know, that's a good point"

Probably not. But it is often much more powerful and convienient and you can do things with it that you can't do with the hardware. So If you´re after a good sound you'd use the hardware, but if you're after anything else you would use the software.

hmm...?

Kalli

FalconerHK · 29th August 2006, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by popmann

Ask yourself this question: when has software EVER sounded as good as hardware equivalents?

Amen. There's something about the sound of my E4 that I prefer over Kontact. It's "creamier" or something. One of those hard-to-describe subjective things I can't put my finger on.

Otherwise it's a pile of crap, especially the user interface, like most hardware samplers. Its fan is noisy, the display is small and I've worn the labels off half of the buttons. Did I mention every edit takes forever? Yecch.

I keep going back and forth about selling it, but I have the full Miroslav library and I consistently prefer the sound of that library on the E4 over any of my software orchestral libraries (including the Miroslav library imported into Kontact). Oh well.

29th August 2006, 03:24 PM

Part of the reason I went for an MPC 4k was to have a rack mount sampler equivalent that could sample 24bit sounds.

I think software has its place. I think huge libraries ala Ivory (which is a library with an interface buit in), Scarbee etc...

For drums and smaller stuff like bass sounds I go hardware.

pan60 · 29th August 2006, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyBelmont

I know why... But I'm not telling you.

so a touch of evil

Fredrik · 29th August 2006, 04:15 PM

If you like the hardware just get the hardware and be done with it. An e4/e64 will cost less than a kontakt so it´s an easy choice.

KingDaddyO · 29th August 2006, 05:01 PM

Apart from the reality that software emulation may never beat real hardware... it might also have something to do with the fact that certain Roland samplers do contain some of the sweetest sounding filters ever built.

I've got an S-760 that I'll never part with. It's like sprinkling 'audio fairy dust' on any signal that passes through it.

============================================= ===================================

Hey dlmorley - A Roland S-750?
Not sure there is a 750?... by chance did you mean a 760 or a 770?

Musiclab · 29th August 2006, 05:14 PM

Are these converted samples? If they are probably the conversions just aren't quite right. Or maybe the software filters aren't happening.There are some samples like the Scarbee stuff that sound great. But I have Ivory and I have the Coakley Perfect Piano for the Kurzweil, I'm not sure Ivory really sounds much better, if at all, but there is some velocity stuff I have to play with. Keep the hardware use whatevers best for the job

Isle of Weight · 29th August 2006, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H-Rezz

The ideal situation if it ever arises is that someone make a softsampler with the same capabilites as Machfive, Kontakt etc in a stand alone box with it's own convertors but have the ability to sync to the sample accurate clock that softsamplers do inside a DAW, that will be the best case scenario......

YES!!!!!!!

AA.

thenoodle · 29th August 2006, 06:44 PM

I would post this question directly to the horse's mouth....Eric Pershing of Spectrasonics via Northern Sounds. He has the benefit of being fully in the software domain, and yet he invented many if not most of the sounds you hear inside Roland units. And he was one of the main team members that had to figure out how to actually get those sounds working in the hardware.

If anyone has a take on why you like the hardware better, Eric is the guy who's opinion would mean something. Of course he may not even answer this kind of question, being that his niche is now totally software.

RKrizman · 29th August 2006, 07:01 PM

It's the analog electronics. Same reason a 5080 sounds different from a 1080.

I've had the same conclusion about all this. I'm scoring a film now and have been using all my softsynths. However, when I slot in a track from my Triton or S-760 or 5080 things just come alive. You don't need any blindfold test to verify the difference.

I'm using alot of Cranesong Phoenix on the softsynths to crunch them up a bit.

I know Eric Persing has done an amazing job with Stylus, etc., but I still have trouble getting it to punch like I want it to.

-R

OHA · 29th August 2006, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingDaddyO

Apart from the reality that software emulation may never beat real hardware...

I'll tell you a secret... Inside your Roland, Emu and Akai samplers there is software.. And even microprocessors to

But don't tell anyone... shhh

**TonyBelmont** · 29th August 2006, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RKrizman

It's the analog electronics.

Bingo! Every piece of gear has analog stages of circuitry that it passes through (in this case the DA & output stage of the MV8000)... These analog stages color the sound and make things sound different to us.

In this case it sounds better, sometimes it will sound worse, but it's best described as "different".

cerla · 29th August 2006, 07:40 PM

I think it's time to take the dust away from this beast:

http://www.loopers-delight.com/tools/akai/remix16.html

grittiest sound I've ever heard (16 bit, 8, 16 or 32Khz!) but I've never thought about using it in the studio...

BTW, is it my impression or studio technology is in "fast rewind" mode, these days?
I think in the last 5 years we've lost a lot of "soul", at least in dance music...

when I listen to techno or house music of the '90s I can't help but conclude that those records had a BETTER sound compared to today's counterparts.
For sure a bit darker, but more dynamics, more "gum" in the bass department, much sweeter top-end, less fatigue for the ears... in a word, more pleasant music!
IMHO, that is one of the reasons why this kind of music sells much less than before: it's a pain for the ears. Check the waveform of Benny Benassi "satisfaction", which was a hit: it's a perfectly painted black block! Human ears like "circles", not "squares"...

I go to plug in the Remix 16 to a couple of 550b's, let's see if "circles" happen!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Hardware Sampler	vls	Electronic Music Instruments & Electronic Music Production	14	26th October 2007 12:22 AM
name the ultimate hardware sampler	soultrane	So much gear, so little time!	20	14th July 2006 01:58 PM
Akai announces a new hardware sampler	bambamstudio	So much gear, so little time!	22	19th October 2004 08:39 PM
Shittyest, Grittyest, Worst sounding sampler?	jazzius	So much gear, so little time!	11	24th January 2003 11:36 PM
Does anyone use the Garritan library with a hardware sampler?	Nraki	So much gear, so little time!	2	2nd December 2002 01:26 PM

28th August 2006, 06:11 AM	#1
The Greening Gear Head Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 59	Why is My Hardware Sampler Sounding Better Than My Software Sampler!? Same Samples!.. This makes NO logical sense to me at all. I've been planning to sell my Roland MV-8000 and use a combination of Sequencer + Battery for electronic drum tirggering. Before selling, however, I wanted to insure that I wasn't truly losing anything. 1. Made a sequence 2. Loaded up the ideal samples in the sampler 3. Put the exact same sequence on the computer, loaded Battery Both are perfectly in time. Both sound substantially different. I thought maybe the converters on the soundcard were making a difference, so I recorded out of the soundcard and then back in...no dice. This is a logical impossibility!!! These are the same sounds being tiggered from the same sequence. What is the missing component? Do hardware samplers have some sort of built in compression/EQ curve on the output buss!? Seriously, it sounds fuller, more crisp, and generally more inspiring. I've read about "MIDI Timing" in these forums...those are refering to the tightness of the groove, and not the actual sounds though, I assume. Anyway, the seqences are not the issue. They play back the same. Please throw out suggestions if you've been in this situation. I still WANT to sell the sampler because I could use the money towards other gear -- but I'm not going to compromise the sound (I'm not looking to run Battery through a bunch of effects just to get to where the Roland is naturally -- unless there is more going on under the hood of the MV8000 not being mentioned). All help appreciated, Will

28th August 2006, 06:43 AM	#2
toolstudio Lives for gear Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Germany Posts: 538	Same experience here, that's way I moved back from softsynth and kontakt to MPC3000 and my hardware synth. Instant musical happieness..... wolfgang __________________ toolhouse studios, germany NEW WEBSITE: www.tool-house.com www.myspace.com/toolhouse

28th August 2006, 06:53 AM	#3
bcgood Lives for gear Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: West Coast Posts: 3,067	Same Here I've tried both and I feel hardware sounds better as well, (I have an Akai Z4). To me it's the same thing as software the UA 1176 software not sounding as good as the real thing, hardware is just typically better at doing what it was designed for. I kind of think of it like a Sony playstation's graphics looking better and running better than the same games I play on the computer but maybe that's a bad comparison. I just think that an outboard unit that is designed to specifically do something is going to sound better than a computer program trying to emulate it... bcgood

28th August 2006, 09:55 AM	#5
TonyBelmont Moderator Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Boston,MA Providence,RI Posts: 10,058	I know why... But I'm not telling you. __________________ Tony Belmont We Sell Gear! Need plugins? Check out PluginDiscounts.com

28th August 2006, 07:13 AM	#4
H-Rezz Lives for gear Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 1,368	The ideal situation if it ever arises is that someone make a softsampler with the same capabilites as Machfive, Kontakt etc in a stand alone box with it's own convertors but have the ability to sync to the sample accurate clock that softsamplers do inside a DAW, that will be the best case scenario....... I agree that stock standard Samplers like Akai's, Emu's etc still sound better because of their dedicated convertors with algorithms to match , but where they fall over is that they have to be programmed using sluggish midi messages that aren't that tight especially compared to frame accurate softsamplers , so you do get time shift which is a bitch for those of us who layer then track lay the layered sounds on seperate tracks , any movement in time will cause a flam to layered sounds , this is totally random so there is no point trying to figure it out ! Softsynths can be stacked,layered and then tracked back to audio with no timing issues , so your phase correlation is always where you left it ! Obvioulsy better convertors on your DAW will inprove that sound of your softsynths/Sampler , coupled with a great sounding D.I. into a great sounding PRE and you have upped your tone again and given your sound a polished sheen it could not have had in the virtual domain ..... So the question is can one put up with the slop of midi for a better instant sound or treat the sound later for the desired effect .....??? BTW , the MPC is another kettle of fish , i'm speaking for those of us that use DAW's to sequence and prefer that way of working ....

28th August 2006, 10:26 AM	#6
SUPADUPA Gear maniac Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 249	same here I went back to my Akai's after kontakt ... there are a few things that kontakt can do that my Akai's can't .. But I write music with my hardware samplers ... I find I just end up tweaking endlessly with kontakt ...

28th August 2006, 09:41 PM	#9
The Greening Gear Head Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 59	Hey, it's okay to share with the group. It's about time this got out. Be my friend . Or die!!

29th August 2006, 11:00 AM	#12
dlmorley Lives for gear Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Belgium Posts: 3,070	I have constantly been fruistrated with software samplers. Practical yes, but I also end up relying on my old boxes MPC60 Roland S-750.Nothing sounds as fat except for my..... Fairlight III. Alas has a boot problem, but it#s fabulous. Yamaha A5000. Super practical with lots of features. Not quite as good sounding as the above but better than my software samplers.. I have yet to enjoy using software as much either, so sure they have more features and integrate better (and usually access loads of libraries), but for creating music with, I am heading back to hardware more and more. Same with sequencers. I love the features of software, but I am more focused and efficient on the MPC60 or my Yamaha QX3.

29th August 2006, 02:17 PM	#15
popmann Lives for gear Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Nashville Posts: 1,297	Ask yourself this question: when has software EVER sounded as good as hardware equivalents?

29th August 2006, 03:24 PM	#18
no ssl yet Guest Posts: n/a	Part of the reason I went for an MPC 4k was to have a rack mount sampler equivalent that could sample 24bit sounds. I think software has its place. I think huge libraries ala Ivory (which is a library with an interface buit in), Scarbee etc... For drums and smaller stuff like bass sounds I go hardware.

29th August 2006, 04:15 PM	#20
Fredrik Lives for gear Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,704	If you like the hardware just get the hardware and be done with it. An e4/e64 will cost less than a kontakt so it´s an easy choice.

29th August 2006, 05:01 PM	#21
KingDaddyO Lives for gear Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 1,393	Apart from the reality that software emulation may never beat real hardware... it might also have something to do with the fact that certain Roland samplers do contain some of the sweetest sounding filters ever built. I've got an S-760 that I'll never part with. It's like sprinkling 'audio fairy dust' on any signal that passes through it. ============================================= =================================== Hey dlmorley - A Roland S-750? Not sure there is a 750?... by chance did you mean a 760 or a 770? __________________ ~8^) "The enemy isn't liberalism or conservatism, the enemy is bullshit." Lars-Erik Nelson "Now, when there's no longer surface noise and you actually have the ability to have the most extraordinary dynamic range, people aren't using it." T-Bone Burnett "The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them." Albert Einstein "I'm not black, but there's a whole lot of times I wish I could say I'm not white." Frank Zappa

29th August 2006, 05:14 PM	#22
Musiclab Lives for gear Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Elmont NY Posts: 3,201	Are these converted samples? If they are probably the conversions just aren't quite right. Or maybe the software filters aren't happening.There are some samples like the Scarbee stuff that sound great. But I have Ivory and I have the Coakley Perfect Piano for the Kurzweil, I'm not sure Ivory really sounds much better, if at all, but there is some velocity stuff I have to play with. Keep the hardware use whatevers best for the job __________________ Lou Gimenez www.musiclabnyc.com

29th August 2006, 06:44 PM	#24
thenoodle Lives for gear Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 536	I would post this question directly to the horse's mouth....Eric Pershing of Spectrasonics via Northern Sounds. He has the benefit of being fully in the software domain, and yet he invented many if not most of the sounds you hear inside Roland units. And he was one of the main team members that had to figure out how to actually get those sounds working in the hardware. If anyone has a take on why you like the hardware better, Eric is the guy who's opinion would mean something. Of course he may not even answer this kind of question, being that his niche is now totally software. __________________ *"make multitrack sound for long long time"*

29th August 2006, 07:01 PM	#25
RKrizman Lives for gear Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Santa Monica, CA Posts: 2,823	It's the analog electronics. Same reason a 5080 sounds different from a 1080. I've had the same conclusion about all this. I'm scoring a film now and have been using all my softsynths. However, when I slot in a track from my Triton or S-760 or 5080 things just come alive. You don't need any blindfold test to verify the difference. I'm using alot of Cranesong Phoenix on the softsynths to crunch them up a bit. I know Eric Persing has done an amazing job with Stylus, etc., but I still have trouble getting it to punch like I want it to. -R

29th August 2006, 07:40 PM	#28
cerla Gear Head Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 51	I think it's time to take the dust away from this beast: http://www.loopers-delight.com/tools/akai/remix16.html grittiest sound I've ever heard (16 bit, 8, 16 or 32Khz!) but I've never thought about using it in the studio... BTW, is it my impression or studio technology is in "fast rewind" mode, these days? I think in the last 5 years we've lost a lot of "soul", at least in dance music... when I listen to techno or house music of the '90s I can't help but conclude that those records had a BETTER sound compared to today's counterparts. For sure a bit darker, but more dynamics, more "gum" in the bass department, much sweeter top-end, less fatigue for the ears... in a word, more pleasant music! IMHO, that is one of the reasons why this kind of music sells much less than before: it's a pain for the ears. Check the waveform of Benny Benassi "satisfaction", which was a hit: it's a perfectly painted black block! Human ears like "circles", not "squares"... I go to plug in the Remix 16 to a couple of 550b's, let's see if "circles" happen!