Phaselocking 2025 and other sampler related discussions

[Christoph Hart]

So,

I'm currently a bit stuck in the development of the new complex sampler module - it goes like it always goes and the feature set quickly exploded into something much more complex than the original idea...

I'm kind of stuck at the moment so maybe some input from some of you who have worked with legato samples in the past might chime in so we can figure out how to come up with a feature set that is most usable.

So I'm currently working on the legato layer, which is a dedicated group logic for handling legato transitions. Once all samples are assigned properly (the "group value" is simply the start transition note), it will automatically handle the sample selection to play the correct transition from the old to the new note with no scripting required.

However I realized (and this came also up in our last meetup) that the sample selection is the easy part and getting the legato transitions right involves a lot of custom tweaking and that's where the fun begins:

1. You have to stop the old note
2. Play the legato transition
3. Play the new sustain note (with a delay that is about as long as the legato transition)

This yields several parameters (the fade time between the samples, the length of the legato sample), etc. which in the traditional way of doing things (legato samples and sustain samples being loaded into separate samplers) is kind of doable by just adding some script processors in each sampler that perform this task.

Now the main problem that I'm facing currently is that the current scripting API does not offer control for handling different voices that are launched within the same sampler module and there's no easy solution to this without blowing up the architectural complexity even further. Usually I would just say "well, guys until here" and ditch the entire thing (or at least the legato layer) BUT there is one awesome feature that presents itself once you are putting the sustain samples and the legato samples into the same sampler (aside from the organisational benefits): With a little bit of computational overhead we can get access to the playback position of the sustain sample and then sync both the legato transitions as well as the delayed target note to be perfectly in sync with each other.

I've been working with artificial samples (just a sine wave with "legato transitions") and the transition lines up perfectly (after a weekend of debugging it also respects the HISE_EVENT_RASTER that aligns the midi position to multiple of 8s lol):

The top waveform is the sustain sample and the bottom one the legato sample. The legato layer will calculate the next zero crossing of the currently played sustain note and move the start of the legato sample to perfectly match the phase of the sustain sample. It also applies a fade to the start and end of each sample and the resulting sound in this artificial example is a perfect sine wave transition without any noticeable transitions between the samples. Noice noice noice.

So this is kind of the carrot that is hanging in front of my face that keeps me on pursuing this feature set as I think that this will highly improve the sound quality of legato samples and having this built into the engine would be awesome. However there are a few caveats:

1. Obviously the success rate of this function depends on the consistency of the samples. It's all fun and games with an artificially generated sine wave with perfect pitch, but with real sounds that have a fluctuating pitch the phase-syncing becomes impossible as it will fall apart within a few cycles. By pitchlocking (or phaselocking) the samples this can be mitigated though. I haven't played around with pitch / phaselocking for quite some time though so if anyone can bring me up to speed on what people are using for phaselocking their samples in 2025 it would be awesome.
2. Currently the entire functionality sits inside the engine and I'm not sure if I can expose this to the scripting layer for additional customizability - of course stuff like the fade time can be exposed (and if you want to seek into the transitions to make them more snappy I could make the engine respect the start offset (which again needs to be moved to the correct phase position internally) but that's about it. I would love to hear from anyone who has ever implemented legato transitions if there is something that I'm missing here? Of course there is polyphonic legato (see below), but apart from that have you implemented more features?
3. Polyphonic Legato. In order to support poly legato I would simply implement that functionality right into the legato layer module and expose its bypass state as well as a few selected internal parameters. It's been a while since I last wrote a polyphonic legato script (2012 lol), but IIRC there are not too many parameters that need to be customizable: it's actually just the chord detection threshhold that groups notes together that are closely played after each other, but the rest is following a pretty standardised rule set.

So long story short: in order to continue my quest for a perfect legato engine, please let me know these three things:

1. What are you using for pitch/phase-locking your samples and with what success rate?
2. Do you need more parameters exposed in the default legato transition mode
3. Do you need more parameters exposed for the poly legato engine?

Oh and if anyone has a nice sampleset that you want to share with me so I can check this stuff with real-world samples, it would be great. These samples will obviously not be published anywhere it's just for my internal development process.

[d.healey]

@Christoph-Hart said in Phaselocking 2025 and other sampler related discussions:

I haven't played around with pitch / phaselocking for quite some time though so if anyone can bring me up to speed on what people are using for phaselocking their samples in 2025 it would be awesome.

I have a custom tool (c++) that I commissioned specifically for phase-locking. I can share the repo with you if you're interested. It was actually written by Chris Cannam of RubberBand fame. It doesn't work so well with shorter samples though, it messes with the attack, but we were optimising for sustains so maybe this can be improved.

For some instruments I'm just resynthesising them with Loris and flattening the pitch.

How will this system work with multi-mic samples where the phase is all over the place? Will it just sync individual mics together?

[Lindon]

@Christoph-Hart said in Phaselocking 2025 and other sampler related discussions:

So long story short: in order to continue my quest for a perfect legato engine, please let me know these three things:

1. What are you using for pitch/phase-locking your samples and with what success rate?
2. Do you need more parameters exposed in the default legato transition mode
3. Do you need more parameters exposed for the poly legato engine?

1. Well to be honest Im in a somewhat different relationship with the audio..but it may work as a model - in that I say to the client - "your problem" and like Dave's explanation they then use some external 3rd party tool set to get the files into "as good a state" as they can and I essentially do what you've outlined above, with a bunch of manual tweaking to get it playback positions synced up as best I can - either with some global or a per individual transition rule set. Given you have a very very attractive potential solution for that part then Im all good "as is"
2. Nope all good.
3. Nope again all good.

[Christoph Hart]

@d-healey said in Phaselocking 2025 and other sampler related discussions:

How will this system work with multi-mic samples where the phase is all over the place? Will it just sync individual mics together?

I would assume that the phase relation is consistent across mic positions - it might have a different phase but since it's the same waveform that phase difference will stay constant, no?

So you can just align the first mic position and the other ones should follow suit. Ideally you would use the closest position as "guide".

Also there's still a lot work to be done on my side, one of the tasks is to calculate a more reliable way to detect the phase position that just look for a zero crossing from negative to positive as most real waveforms have more than one zero crossing per wave cycle.

[tomekslesicki]

@Christoph-Hart will it also be possible to disable the crossfade after the transition and stay on the legato transition sample? I’m thinking about a scenario where the samples are edited so that the transition sample also contains the sustian portion to loop.

[Christoph Hart]

@tomekslesicki Ah yes, that should be an option.

It currently works by assigning the "Ignore" flag to the sustain samples (so that they are played regardless of which legato transition is active), but I can add an option to not start the sustain sample of the target not if the legato transition already includes the next sustain phase.

[tomekslesicki]

@Christoph-Hart that would be super cool and flexible I think!

[Simon]

@Christoph-Hart Oh boy my favorite subject :)

First off, automatically aligning the legatos to sustains is one of those coveted features that's impossible to do in Kontakt, at least without squashing your samples to a consistent pitch (and rendering them unlistenable in the process, which you then remedy by re-applying a pitch curve). What you are working on is beautiful and super exciting.

RE: a few of your points.

Sine waves

This alignment will be most noticeable on solo instruments that are already closer to sine waves than to the chaos of an ensemble. I imagine testing with sine wavs is a totally suitable stand in, and aligning based on rising/falling zero crossings should already give very good results.

Legato Parameters

I would like to have access to:

• Attack and release time, and curve, for source sustain, legato sample, target sustain.
• Volume for each legato sample (I don't see any reason this would be removed but just in case. Maybe it's possible to include this in a "legato adjustment" ui?)

Most of the time you will want the crossfades to be the same length on both sides, ie. sourceSustain > legato will have an xfade of ~180ms, and this value will be adjusted for both. This is what I eventually settled on for Poeesia. However, sometimes having the source sustain play a little longer can help preserve ambience, eg. sourceSustain.Release = 220ms, legato.Attack = 180ms.

There might also be situations where you want release samples to have yet another setting, so targetSustain.release would change depending on whether you're playing to a new legato sample, or to a release sample.

Whether it's worth exposing all the parameters separately depends on how annoying it is for you to implement.

sourceSustain > legato, crossfadeTime
sourceSustain > legato, crossfadeShape
legato > targetSustain, crossfadeTime
legato > targetSustain, crossfadeShape

is probably sufficient, and in fact probably the nicest dev experience.

Legato length

What I loved about building Poeesia in HISE was I wasn't forced to choose a "best fit" setting for the legato sample length like you're forced to in Kontakt.

I just got the length of the legato sample from the samplemap, and delayed playback of the target sustain by that amount. I was then free to set unique start end end points (and volume) for every legato sample in the library. This is the main reason the instrument sounds better than it ever could in Kontakt.

Phase locking sustains

I do not pitch/phase lock my samples because it's never really been an option, and is only really beneficial on solo instruments with multiple dynamics. As usual, doing it in Kontakt is a pain, though I know some devs have done it.

However, I assume using loris to flatten the pitch, and re-applying the extracted pitch curve from one dynamic layer to all dynamic layers using the sample editor envelope in HISE, would be an extremely pleasant workflow.

Even on raw, non-phase-locked samples, aligning the phase of sustains to legatos is very noticeable, just like it is for loops.

Polylegato

You probably know this already, but just to recap. Two different conditions should trigger a legato sample:

• key released, and another one pressed soon after (jump legato)
• key pressed, and another one released soon after (overlap legato)

Either one of these on their own is also technically polylegato, but it is much less playable for the enduser, to the point where I wouldn't include it in a library.

The only parameter that needs to be exposed is the "legato window", which also represents the added latency. I experimented with different times for jump/overlap legato, but settled on adjusting them together and exposing that setting in the UI of the instrument.