The Sample Map of The Future: Escaping the 20th Century Sample Mapping Paradigm
-
@Simon having legatos in the same sampler does bring some benefits (eg. Automatic gain matching like with the release start and zero cross aligning the start for less phasing during the fade).
In the end it‘s just another filter with 128 options - the legato sample will be mapped to the target note and this filter is set to the source note.
-
@Christoph-Hart For automatic gain matching, I'll gladly put all my legatos in the same sampler :)
-
@Christoph-Hart You've probably thought of this already, but just in case:
Ideally the legatos would be matched to the sustains, not the other way around. The start of the legato sample should be matched to the end of the source sustain, and the end of the legato sample should be matched to the start of the target sustain.
An envelope seems simplest to me, or a compressor/expander. In any case:
- Apply a gain offset to the legato sample, to match it to the source sustain
- Apply an envelope to the legato sample, to match the end of the legato sample to the target sustain
The envelope attack time and curve might be worth exposing as options, or maybe a fixed curve is enough.
I have spent a lot of time working on legatos and have equally many opinions on them, so I am very excited to see what you are working on.
-
@Simon said in The Sample Map of The Future: Escaping the 20th Century Sample Mapping Paradigm:
The biggest change for me here is being able to use dynamic xfades and round robins simultaneously in one sampler.
Already possible, see Lindon's recent thread
-
@d-healey I know you technically CAN, but I mean in a way that is easy to work with, and doesn't require using RR groups for two different purposes.
-
Quick survey: how much of you that are using the Crossfade feature actually use the tables for customizing the crossfade curves? I mean changing this
to something like this:
The reason I ask is that now we have that nice xfader node available in scriptnode, we can just use its algorithms to replace the table curves which makes it much faster to calculate and easier to implement / maintain (I'll include a few fade types which should cover most use cases):
I'll keep the tables around in the old system for backwards compatibility of course, but not having to drag this tech debt to the new system would be nice.
-
@Christoph-Hart I leave them as linear fades and rely on CC smoothing for the curvyness.
-
@Christoph-Hart Me, 100% of the time. I adjust it until the xfade feels right. I also pretty much never want a linear fade from one to the other, but expand the dynamic range by making the lower dynamic fade down in the lower range.
-
This post is deleted! -
@Christoph-Hart I would not at all be opposed to having the common curves as presets, but it's quite important to be able to adjust the curves for feel.
-
@Simon Now you mention it I sometimes do that dipping technique as well.
-
@d-healey alrighty, then I'll make two separate logic types for the fade (one called TableFade with the tables and one called XFade using the inbuilt fade types). I'll probably exclude the table fade for the MVP , as it's a lot of boilerplate and some UX annoyances to get there.
Ideally you can then use multiple dimensions of fading layers, so you if you have a matrix of 3 dynamic layers and vib / no vib, you can then fade between all 6 samples using two different CCs.
