I've decided. I want an Emulator II.

[zoink]

That's the ONLY way of looking at it, as far as I'm concerned. You used the 1 megapixel camera analogy, which I think is exactly apt. Try to look at it from a different perspective. I have a photo series that I did recently comprised of images I took with the crappy camera in my Moto RAZR phone. Way less than 1 megapixel images with horrible jpeg compression and no dynamic range whatsoever. I took the choice images, blew them up large, and did some post-processing on them in the computer to make all of the compression artifacts even more obvious. I really like the end result. It's like looking at real images but filtered through some cracked, postmodern lens. We get hung up a lot on thinking we need better quality this and higher res that, but I want to explore the grunge and the lo-fi and make modern art with it. That's part of what's making me want an EII.

 

 

This reminds me of the Fisher Price PXL-2000, which was an ultra low resolution video camera for kids released back in the 1980s that recorded video to an audio cassette.

 

It later saw a revival in popularity with adults in filmmaking who liked the low-resolution pixelated look of the picture and slow frame rate.

 

There have been similar revivals of low-tech in the use of old film (both still and motion picture) cameras.

[r33k]

This reminds me of the Fisher Price PXL-2000, which was an ultra low resolution video camera for kids released back in the 1980s that recorded video to an audio cassette.

 

 

Exactly what I'm talking about! The "obsolescence" of the format becomes an inseparable part of the work. Also, the haters need to keep in mind that I think the Emulator II is a beautiful object that I believe would be inspiring to touch, look at, program, and of course, play. Furthermore, there was a fairly brilliant and extensive sound library that I'd like to get my hands on. Obviously, there are a handful of factory sounds that have to be avoided due to overuse in the 80's, but there's tons of usable stuff in there.

[Don Solaris]

 

because you can just bump down any audio file you record to a much lower sampling rate or bit depth, or both to get the same effect. It's always easy to start hi-fi and clean process it to lo-fi and grungy.

 

This is ridiculous. Where are you going to play that sample? Through which converters? Using what playback / oversampling method? Using what type of transposition / resample algorithm? Using which dither type? And which antialiasing filter method?

 

Are you telling me you can set all these parameters in your "sampler"? Which one is it? I would really like to have it. I could dump my S-550, ASR-10 and AKAI S-3000XL right away.

 

 

 

Bottom line:

When you sample something at 16bit / 44.1 and use bit crusher to bring it down to 12bit and resample at 15kHz, it DOES NOT sound the same as the actual hardware. Why? Because it is NOT just bit depths and sample rates, you know? Sample playback technology is a little more complicated than that. Try a a few samplers and do tests for yourself. People apparently have some reasons to use 8 and 12 bit machines even today, and i doubt it is a desire to waste precious and expensive studio time (thanks to horrible UI some of these units have).

[zoink]

Exactly what I'm talking about! The "obsolescence" of the format becomes an inseparable part of the work. Also, the haters need to keep in mind that I think the Emulator II is a beautiful object that I believe would be inspiring to touch, look at, program, and of course, play. Furthermore, there was a fairly brilliant and extensive sound library that I'd like to get my hands on. Obviously, there are a handful of factory sounds that have to be avoided due to overuse in the 80's, but there's tons of usable stuff in there.

 

 

 

It's funny you mention the layout and feel of an older sampler, which is something I was thinking about the other day. I own a number of *much* more powerful samplers, but for some reason nothing compares to the experience of working on an old ASR10 or EPS. It's probably similar for some with old Emulators. Some samplers are so sensibly laid out that it's actually *fun* to create multi-samples, build drum kits, etc. Plus it's fun to go back and play with old sound libraries.

[r33k]

Exactly what I'm getting at.

[Elhardt]

When you sample something at 16bit / 44.1 and use bit crusher to bring it down to 12bit and resample at 15kHz, it DOES NOT sound the same as the actual hardware. Why? Because it is NOT just bit depths and sample rates, you know? Sample playback technology is a little more complicated than that. Try a a few samplers and do tests for yourself. People apparently have some reasons to use 8 and 12 bit machines even today

 

 

Of course a sample can be processed afterward to accomplish the same thing. In fact, any resampling that was done in the hardware sampler to change pitches is still preserved, it's just that you'd be down sampling again later. The reason people think they need to buy an old 8 bit or 12 bit sampler is because they don't know enough to process it later, or it's the trendy thing to buy and use, or because an older sampler is less complex to work with. Acting as if there's something magical about a 12 bit sampler over post processing something to sound like a 12 bit sampler is just more dogma like so much of the nonsense in these forums, where people fail blind listening tests all the time.

[Elhardt]

Okay, that's fine. You clearly don't get it and I'm not going to try to explain it to you, but realize that your narrow view of the world is not shared by everyone.

 

 

I realize it's not shared by everyone. We're living in a world of trashy sounding crap. That's the point I was making. As is said, 99 percent of everything is crap. So there's a hell of a lot of people that don't share my "narrow view of the world".

[r33k]

Well, Elhardt, I guess I feel better knowing that there's virtually no chance you'll ever encounter my music.

[Don Solaris]

Acting as if there's something magical about a 12 bit sampler over post processing something to sound like a 12 bit sampler is just more dogma like so much of the nonsense in these forums

 

 

Why would some musician want to waste time analyzing sonic performance of a "sampler x" and find out which interpolation it uses, bith depths, floating points, d/ac response, etc, then 2) invest money in sample software, 3) then more money into processing plugins, so that he could 4) waste time doing "post processing" to achieve THAT SOUND, when he can have THAT SOUND for $100 (i.e. S-550) or less (i.e. Mirage).

 

I do not use warez software so i know how much some of these programs and plugins cost(!).

[xpander]

while u were busy arguing, i bought an Emulator II. can't wait to music with it!

[idiotboy]

Good for you, xpander!

 

Now give me your FS1r.

 

[xpander]

Now give me your FS1r.

 

the SY's will go before you pry that from my cold, dead hands!

[idiotboy]

...in that case I'll settle for one of your many minis.

[xpander]

...in that case I'll settle for one of your many minis.

[xpander]

... and ...