11/6/2022 0 Comments Alchemy vst internal clippingAdditionally, it would have been nice to see the original input meter to help with intentional clipping for effect.Īnd although I have tons of sample from my S900 that already have "the sound", I'm sure to find many uses for this device in my rack! That's my only disappointment with this otherwise stellar device. So yea, it's going to make your instruments sound louder for sure! The RX950 adds 9.25 dB of gain - are you suggesting the original S950 added that much gain as well? I'm pretty certain my S900 didn't add any gain by default. This is something I did want to put into the audio clips. I've been blown away by the easiness of making each instrument louder and warmer in my mix, something I was struggling to obtain properly for years. I admit there's an intended difference in loudness between dry&wet, simply because that's what the RX950 provides in my opinion.įull story : I've been working with Mathieu for a very long time on the design of the RX950 before I could get an actual version to test, in order to start working on the demosong in Reason. I think many would appreciate a normalized preview. It is not a very good way to show how it sounds, since louder will always be better. The before/after soundexamples on the soundcloud are not normalized and jump in volume. Which reminds me: an “S900 mode” would be pretty sweet - always preferred the sound of the S900 over the ‘cleaner’ S950 and the super-clean S1000 series. This leads me to believe the A/D (where initial sample rate/bandwidth was determined) was a big part of the Akai “sound”. I also used Alchemy (and later Sound Designer) to get some samples into the device (in addition to editing), bypassing the front end (A/D) entirely, which IIRC was a cleaner sound. I tried it on some percussion samples and was happy with the results (was previously was unable to get them as loud as the other samples in the perc kit). The advice was actually not that bad - they mentioned that clipping of less than a few ms was virtually undetectable to the human ear. How much did this contribute to the sound and can it be recreated with this RE?Įxcellent point - I even remember reading an article in Keyboard Mag (late 1980s era) about intentionally clipping the input on transient sounds to get more level. I always wondered how much the S950 sound was to do with clipping, considering most people then didn't understand clipping like people do now (well me anyway). And I can use it on any source!Īny more fun technical or development facts you can share with us, Mathieu?ĭioxide wrote:I'm looking forward to demoing this as a former S950 owner. I'm pretty sure I'll end up buying this even though I have TAL Sampler, just because it sounds great and has more tweakability than TAL's sampler models. Maybe it was just me being rubbish with the mouse - I'll try it with automation. It makes smooth filter sweeps a bit tricky. It changes drastically from 12 o'clock to 2 o'clock and then doesn't change as much from there until the end of its range. the filter knob doesn't seem very linear. If a switch on the front would mess up the super-neat design, a pair of "filter input" jacks on the back would be just fine! I love filters. it would be really cool to be able to use the filter without the rest of the processing. The only thoughts I had for improvement were: The bandwidth control lets you fine-tune the low-pass sit-in-the-mix crunchy sampler quality, while there's saturation and dirt available from the input. I was having a play with the trial last night - it's a lovely RE! It's simple and lightweight (1mb download!) and just samplers everything right up. Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk So it’s safe to say that audio bandwidth will be less than half the sample rate.īut as a recreation, I’d assume the bandwidth control would read the sample rate since that’s how the original worked, correct? At least that’s how it worked on my S900 - is the S950 different? For bandwidth to equal Nyquist, you would have to have perfect brick wall filters, which do not exist (certainly not in the analog domain). But the actual bandwidth depends on the filters used, not just the sample rate. Sorry if I fed any confusion - as a past S900 owner I assumed the sample rates were the same.Ībout bandwidth, it’s tied to sample rate (all that was being said, right?). Do the math: 19200 x 2.5 = 48000Ĭheers everyone, and thank you all for your kind words. And as we're not in a perfect world, Akai chose to be even more careful: on the S950, the internal sample rate equals the audio bandwidth setting times 2.5. It's all about the famous Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem. Nowadays, we're kinda more used to the sample rate notion, but this should not be confused with audio bandwidth here. Just thought I could shed some light on this topic:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |