Understanding Resampleing?

[panner]

I here alot of people talking about this and not quite sure what exactly is meant by this. as i can see its bouncing you audio and reloading it into a sampler. what kind of stuff would happen then. are you bouncing one note or complete phrases

Ta

[auan]

Basically any time you record something to a fresh audio file or track is resampling.

Scenario 1: You have a long synth line which you're happy with, but it's eating your CPU like a fat kid. So you bounce it down to a single audio track, and reload it into your DAW to save resources. That's resampling.

Scenario 2: You're working on some runnin' break choppage, but you have a few bars that you want to twist up. So you bounce the lot to audio, load it back into the DAW and mangle them few bars some more. That's resampling.

Scenario 3: You're working on a fat bass patch, and for some reason you can't figure out, because you don't build synthesizers, the fucking walls shake when you play F#, but the patch sounds weedy as fuck on middle C. So you sample that F#, load it into a sampler, map it across the keyboard, and now every note makes the walls shake. That's resampling.

Also, when you convert audio from one bitrate to another, like your 24bit mixdown to a 16bit CD master, Sound Forge calls it Resampling, but that's nothing to do with what you're asking.

[future producer]

Or you export your mixdown at 96khz you'd have to resample to 44.1khz for CD.

EDIT: I must tread the full posts.*

[shonky]

Also found it useful lately for controlling reverb tails really tightly, just record the drums, synth, hits, whatever that you want, record it with the reverb and then put them back in the sampler - gives that stop on a dime reverb that's a lot harder to acheive with reverbs, automation and editing.

Best to record a multisample over a whole octave (record notes a minor third apart over a few octaves so that you have four notes per octave). Stops that reverb room size change that you might get just using one hit as a basis.

[Sharmaji]

say you get a really wicked synth sound

the old junglist trick is to get a wobbling synth w/ 2 detuned osciallators going

export/record that sound

load it into the sampler

layer it against itself

and map it across the entire keyboard, with some portamento.

now you've got that good old d&b lead that wobbles faster as you play higher, and gets deeper as you play lower. does more than controllng the LFO w/ the keyboard can.

can do the same w/ breaks/drum 1shots/etc as has been discussed earlier

[panner]

say you get a really wicked synth sound

the old junglist trick is to get a wobbling synth w/ 2 detuned osciallators going

export/record that sound

load it into the sampler

layer it against itself

and map it across the entire keyboard, with some portamento.

now you've got that good old d&b lead that wobbles faster as you play higher, and gets deeper as you play lower. does more than controllng the LFO w/ the keyboard can.

can do the same w/ breaks/drum 1shots/etc as has been discussed earlier

Nice

[serox]

no idea what you guys are on about lol. I never do any o the above, thats why my shit sounds so weak

[digital983]

Scenario 3: You're working on a fat bass patch, and for some reason you can't figure out, because you don't build synthesizers, the fucking walls shake when you play F#, but the patch sounds weedy as fuck on middle C. So you sample that F#, load it into a sampler, map it across the keyboard, and now every note makes the walls shake. That's resampling.

i like this tip alot,never knew this

[MARCHMELLOW]

Scenario 3: You're working on a fat bass patch, and for some reason you can't figure out, because you don't build synthesizers, the fucking walls shake when you play F#, but the patch sounds weedy as fuck on middle C. So you sample that F#, load it into a sampler, map it across the keyboard, and now every note makes the walls shake. That's resampling.

i like this tip alot,never knew this

ditto, sounds veeeery intersting

[__________]

when using fruity loops, my advice is record, don't export. this definately improves the sound quality to a level that is above simply exporting.
i've been doing a lot of resampling through a 1972 allen & heath mixer recently, eqing and overdriving on the mixer and recording back into my laptop. recording fl while playing the sound through the mixer sounds better than exporting the file, playing it and recording it through the mixer.
i don't know the theory behind it, but if you're using fl, believe me it sounds better.

[pupstar]

ahhh stil, i neva knew wat dat ment either, turns out i do it all the time as it is, safe 4 the info

[psyphon]

Resampling, going by the textbook description I learnt at audio engineering college is changing a piece of audio from one sample rate (frequency) to another.

Every sound has so many cycles per second. This is translated into frequencies we understand using hertz/Kilohertz. E.g: a sound at 20hz (the bottom end of human audio range) is being translated by the ear 20 times per second, where a sound at 20,000hz (the top end of the human audio range) is being translated 20,000 times per second.

For example: this top figure leads on to why CD's/MP3's etc are generically produced at 44,100hz (this is just over double the top end of the human audio range). This is because of something called the Nyquist Theory, which states that in order to get a clean sound when resampling, the sample rate needs to be slightly more than double the highest note being sampled other wise you can encounter 'aliasing' (ghosting of frequencies which can corrupt the audio you're resampling).

Basically, to get a decent resample, the sample rate needs to be just over/under double the original.

The term isn't being used incorrectly when people say it's sampling audio again or something else. This is just what I learnt as the 'textbook definition'.

[decklyn]

^yeah defo two meanings

when talking about processing audio it's defo taking the sounds you're working on, recording them, and then processing the audio track farther.

This allows you such luxuries as mentioned above, but, furthermore, it will allow you an endless ammount of cpu for processing the one single synthline you're working on, and will change the very way that you can manipulate that line. For instance, now you can cut, glitch, timestrech and reverse. Primarily I see the word most often used when talking about reese creation. My buddy Rob (Symbiant - wizard producer) works on a 400mhz apple , so he is forced to explore resampling. I've seen him make killer basses. He'll take a couple detuned saws in Predator, record a single note, put that in kontakt, and play a bassline with some distortion, light filtering, eq, then record that. Then distort, phase, filter, eq, re-sample, distort, phase filter, eq, resample etc etc. He'll usually pass a bass through a distortion box about 5 or 6 times, filtering (with LFO) and/or EQing each pass at a minimum. Serious stuff he makes. had the number one tune on beatport for a while.

[psyphon]

Exactly what I was saying in my post above about 'aliasing'.

A lot of peeps are probably accidentally resampling audio at not a high enough, or low enough sample rate. With these aliases that are produced you get those ghosting frequencies that can act like phase reinforcements and give you some mental effects.

Sampling the same piece of audio over and over with eq'ing and effects added in between resampling can give you some serious sounding audio to work with.

I f**king love doing stuff like that.

[decklyn]

Exactly what I was saying in my post above about 'aliasing'.

A lot of peeps are probably accidentally resampling audio at not a high enough, or low enough sample rate. With these aliases that are produced you get those ghosting frequencies that can act like phase reinforcements and give you some mental effects.

Sampling the same piece of audio over and over with eq'ing and effects added in between resampling can give you some serious sounding audio to work with.

I f**king love doing stuff like that.

I didn't even think about the aliasing. i got a new pc so I usually fill up a channel to satisfaction, and then use sends routed to groups (sometimes in parallel) to sort of do the the same thing functionally, but this excludes the aliasing that would take place if sampling to imperfectly divisible sample rates.... Resampling continuously at the same samplerate wouldn't cause any sort of aliasing though, would it?

BTW If you're working at higher resolutioins, screw 96khz, try 88.2khz instead. It's perfectly divisible by 2 to get you to 44.1khz for your mixdowns. No aliasing issues - you're just ditching every other sample.

[kato!]

when using fruity loops, my advice is record, don't export. this definately improves the sound quality to a level that is above simply exporting.
i've been doing a lot of resampling through a 1972 allen & heath mixer recently, eqing and overdriving on the mixer and recording back into my laptop. recording fl while playing the sound through the mixer sounds better than exporting the file, playing it and recording it through the mixer.
i don't know the theory behind it, but if you're using fl, believe me it sounds better.

Jesus Christ! Nope not even he can save you! And I'm not religious!

[psyphon]

BTW If you're working at higher resolutioins, screw 96khz, try 88.2khz instead. It's perfectly divisible by 2 to get you to 44.1khz for your mixdowns. No aliasing issues - you're just ditching every other sample.

Yeah but the thing with that is what I was saying about having your sample rate just over or just under double the highest frequency being sampled.

It may be divisible perfectly by 2 but that's exactly when you'll start gettiing aliasing.

Like I said the highest human audio range is 20 Khz hence why Redbook CD's are 44.1 Khz as it's just over double the highest range we can hear.

[vonboyage]

Scenario 3: You're working on a fat bass patch, and for some reason you can't figure out, because you don't build synthesizers, the fucking walls shake when you play F#, but the patch sounds weedy as fuck on middle C. So you sample that F#, load it into a sampler, map it across the keyboard, and now every note makes the walls shake. That's resampling.

i like this tip alot,never knew this

ditto, sounds veeeery intersting

Indeed. I have a problem though.

When i try to render a .wav .. for example..

it'll keep the F# .. and won't change note according to what i plot out

Is there something im doing wrong?

[2sense]

I thought 'resampling'

was recordings sounds off old Virus records and putting them in your tracks?

[auan]

Scenario 3: You're working on a fat bass patch, and for some reason you can't figure out, because you don't build synthesizers, the fucking walls shake when you play F#, but the patch sounds weedy as fuck on middle C. So you sample that F#, load it into a sampler, map it across the keyboard, and now every note makes the walls shake. That's resampling.

i like this tip alot,never knew this

ditto, sounds veeeery intersting

Indeed. I have a problem though.

When i try to render a .wav .. for example..

it'll keep the F# .. and won't change note according to what i plot out

Is there something im doing wrong?

Err, yeah.

Make a pattern that just plays one F# note for however long.
Render or record the pattern.
Load the rendered wave file into a sampler.
Set the sample's base note (root note on some samplers) to F#.
Set the sample's key range to whatever you want. An octave either side of the base note should do.
Play the keyboard across these octaves (with MIDI going to the sampler, obviously).
Nod head and grin with pride as you realise you have successfully resampled a bass note.