hey I've been looking into BFD 3 closely while its %50 off. When I looked on google someone in a forum said that BFD 3 samples were recorded at 44.1, so the computer has to re-sample in real time when your using it st any other sample rate in a session.
I was under an assumption that the sample sets in vsti were done at each sample rate supported by the plugin , as opposed to re calculated in realtime. Is this the common way in most vsti?
I'm wondering about fidelity/src issues sonically, and computer processing based issues like increased tax on cpu due to recalculations, in addition whatever load introduced by the sessions 'high' sample rate.
Also they BFD claims the use a "propriety lossless compression" for the audio samples to get them from 160 to the 55gb they are in the package.
I'm concerned of a situation where I'm using a reduced quality sample (i.e. The data compression in general) than the session I'm at, any sort of strange resulting SRC issues/artifacts, and using excess CPU power as opposed to other drum bass vsti.
Tags
Comments
To my ears it's a,ways been the best. I'm just concerned about
To my ears it's a,ways been the best. I'm just concerned about going from the samples original rate, re-converting for the session sample rate (96/192), rendered to audio within the session to save CPU processing (instead of realtime triggering), then yet another SRC down to the final capture. That seems like a lot of conversions. In reality for most things it's just going to be used to augment live recorded drums, along w drumagog, which can host some drum instruments like BFD, triggering them in realtime. Druma got will also output midi data from audio, complete w velocities! This is going to help preserve the performance over time, as opposed to hoping all my samples and pluggin settings open correctly 5 years from now.
Proper filing and track management are a big part of my new workflow. It's scary how many sessions I have that won't open the same, or at all, so proper long term recall ability is big for me. Futurproffing is important.
AD is on sale 50% as well, for $125. They only offer 3 kits stock. For pop/rock ad seems to have a more polished / finished sound. And eventually I'll probably purchase it. BFD sounds more like raw tracks well recorded, requiring some additional tailoring work in the mix. It's got some excellent options for quickly rendering drums to audio , separating direct and ambient tracks, i.e. Submixing to audio, or to quickly export each channel within the instrument separately.
Chances are I'll go BFD anyway, since I've liked it since version 1.5, and since it's the most expensive of the vsti instruments on my list, it seems like it's the most opportune one to buy. BFD, drumagog, VSL, and the samplitude suite, as well as any other stock instruments, will round out my starter set, which should have plenty of reference quality, and garden variety samples.
Besides mixing augmentation, and scratch tracks/idea, I want to use the sameple sets, to program the brief little 3sec hooks/cue played, while someone displays their logo, before their YouTube vid. So it's important to have both organic, and synthetic sounding stuff. It's one area becase they're so short, that vsti can go undetected as 'fake' because of how short the cues are, but authenticity doesn't necessarily apply in that arena. I'm finding even borderline cheesy/robotic/synthetic samples can work wonders layered under a live performance, even if it has to sound authentic. Blending live and sample drums is the closest I've come to commercial sounding recordings. I'm getting closer and closer to the status quo over the years.
I'm still just curious how this all works, particularly with regard to high sample rates like 192 which is what I'm moving into w the new setup/business plan. I think track bouncing, submixing, and freezing and disabling, is going to be a big part of my new "modern" workflow.
With low budgets and diy recordings, I want to have my templates setup, so within minutes of importing audio, I'll have basic triggers and sounds already setup and routed, in a very industrial drag and drop style. Then I can tweak from there. With all the re- triggering and amping and midi and replacement going on, I want to keep my technical routing Ect, templated, whenever possible. I'll have various templates for various styles and circumstances.
@kmetal I have several extras with mine. One lot is a zildjian s
kmetal I have several extras with mine. One lot is a zildjian set ( can't remember which) but, the quality is very good on all of it. Control over expression use etc is all part of why it's truly amazing of course. I've always treated drums in the past like audio tracks from my drum machines (sr16 Alesis etc). I really feel if you leave BFD raw, or if it's sets sound right, go for it.
I would track midi back to audio tracks then mix. These programs being this good really eliminate that necessity imho fwiw.
Tony
kmetal, post: 437624, member: 37533 wrote: Good to know tony. I
kmetal, post: 437624, member: 37533 wrote: Good to know tony. I'm taking the plunge in a couple days. Between the samples in BFD , drumagog, and other garden variety, there should be plenty to choose from.
How do you find it is on CPU usage? What sample rate are you using?
Kyle, I have only ever worked up to 96/24. But, my machine I use is an absolute beast anyway. Not sure what your hardware is like. I'm running dual Xenons and 32gb RAM and these days an SSD. The Mac Pro barely notices most things. Logic Pro X just hums along maybe 5-12% even under heavy load.
@kmetal Kyle, I literally just got this prior to moving to Scotl
kmetal Kyle, I literally just got this prior to moving to Scotland. Right now it's packed in a container at a shipyard :). My normal workflow these days uses my UAD quad card for effects.
For room effect I have nice stuff with UAD or I have a lovely Eventide DSP 4000b+ to call on.
All I have heard from BFD thus far though is top notch.
Acoustic drums are off my menu from here on in, as I simply won't have room. I've either used this sort of thing or live drums, never the two to meet :). I think there is certainly a place for additive / replacement. Honestly though, that comes under the heading ( for me) of drive me crazy :). I like to keep things less complicated these days.
Tony
Makzimia, post: 437636, member: 48344 wrote: Acoustic drums are
Makzimia, post: 437636, member: 48344 wrote: Acoustic drums are off my menu from here on in, as I simply won't have room.
That's the curse of most home studios... mine included.
There's no crime in using sample replacement - so many of us have "studios" in our homes these days, and we simply don't have the room - or the proper acoustics in any of our rooms - needed to mic up a full kit and get good drum sounds.
Real drums need sufficient space - at least to record good sounding drums, anyway.
In most residential homes, lower ceilings make it pretty tough to get those sweet overhead tones, of which I find makes up so much of "the sound" of a good drum kit recording, ( in my own experience, any ceiling under 10' is pretty much useless for good overhead sounds, IMO) and that's one of the problems that most home studios face, as so many of us live in homes where the ceilings are generally between 7' and 8'; and where the average room size is only 10' x 12' ( or so).
And, I'm not gonna NOT record simply because I don't have enough space - or the right sounding kind of space - to use real drums - and - I say this being a drummer.
If technology allows me to continue to produce decent sounding recordings, then I'm not gonna let the fact that I can't record real drums stop me from doing that.
Not having a 9' Grand Piano or a real Hammond B3 and Leslie stack in my home studio hasn't stopped me - or thousands of other people - from using piano and organ samples... or strings, or horns... so why would using drum samples be any different? We use what we have available to us. What's the alternative? To not record music because we don't have those real instruments available? I can say that this is certainly no alternative for me.
I'll sometimes set up a small version of my Yamaha kit; kick, snare, rack tom, floor tom, HH, ride and crash, which allows me to play with feel and groove, but the acoustics for the space I have here at home just aren't favorable to using the actual mic'd up tracks, so I reach for Slate, or Superior for sample replacement; although sometimes I'll use real cymbals.
Samples have come so very far quality-wise; it's not like it was even 5 short years ago when so many samples sounded "cheesy"... ( although in this business, 5 years is also a lifetime, when it comes to available technology).
For those that do have the space to do it properly - both physically in size and in sonic response, and if there are enough good mics and input channels available, then sure... absolutely... I'd rather record real drums, too.
But it's just not feasible in my current situation. I mean, I could do it, but the final result wouldn't sound nearly as good as the drum samples that are now available to me.
IMHO of course. ;)
-d.
That's the amazing beauty of drum sampling. Which btw, I didn't
That's the amazing beauty of drum sampling. Which btw, I didn't do up until a like 5 years ago, becasue I didn't know it was a technique (lol). As soon, as I started layering in samples, on top of a live kit, it was another 'aha' moment. Ahhh so that's how they do it. That comercial, larger than life, huge, rock/pop drum sound.
Now I'm not saying I get sounds like slash does, but what I discovered is that, that sound is otherwise unattainable. You need both the classic " great room, player, song, gear" you also have to layer samples in. It's just not something mixers advertised over the years. Obviously not a hard fast rule, but more common than I realized. It's been being done for the last 25 years or more. Again, I'm not saying it's every production.
I think samples and replacement make it more feasible to track live drums at home. you can bash along on a real kit for feel, and layer samples in underneath, or on top. Or completely replace. It could also be though of in reverse, and 'sample' a few kick and snare hit alone (maybe while listening to the track on headphones) and layering in those to a programmed kit.
The kit doesn't need to be expensive or the room big. Even just a couple 57 is enough mics. If you deaden the kit with blankets on stands and one over the kit, you can get workable sounds out of most kits, provided the heads are reasonable, and the kit is in tune. Must be in tune.
The idea is that it's not about fidelity, just the human element. basically comercial pop/rock is the marriage of human and electronic performance, and either one alone doesn't seem to stand up, as well as them paired. I see it as "watering down" the programmed performance, with life, and "tightening up" the live performance/sounds.
Seems like "almost perfect" is the secret. Lol.
Just ordered bfd3 while its 50% off. Thought this demo video wa
Just ordered bfd3 while its 50% off. Thought this demo video was interesting. Simultaneous live and BFD.
Does anyone know how/why, or have a link, to how 24/44.1 samples (which is what BFD was recorded at) work in a 96k or higher session? How does that work? Does the computer like 'fill in the blanks'?
You ask an excellent question that I cannot find the answer to e
You ask an excellent question that I cannot find the answer to either. It runs best @ 44.1 . I do use it at 88.2 and 96 and although it does seem to work harder, it sounds amazing at all SR.
There are 3 detail levels available for the installation. Its been so long since I installed it, I don't recal if those are higher SR or the bigger kit.
Sorry I can't help you more Kyle. I look forward to your answer though.
No need to apologize, eventually an answer will develop. I've b
No need to apologize, eventually an answer will develop. I've been readin and watching for a few days, from what I understand the detail relates to streaming quality/CPU performance, and all samples used within BFD player/format are currently 44.1.
I'm guessing a word like "over sample" or something may come up? I'm gonna google it.
Using soft synths and samples more seriously in the foreseeable future, it seems important to figured out how the samples base sample rate in all synths / vsti's, relates to the sessions sample rates.
Main concern being phase/sync, and modulations resulting from internal 'bouncing to audio' then another transfer to the mix daw. I'm concerned about any SRC related things. Particularly when I start w string samples.
im going to push it to 192 lol see if I can melt my CPU :)
Could it be remotely possible that when you install the program,
Could it be remotely possible that when you install the program, that it installs all the various drum samples at multiple sample rates? So, along with your basic 44, it's also installing 48, 88 and 96 versions of the samples as well, and whichever SR you are using in your project determines which version of the drum samples are being used?
I'm asking because I don't know...
What I know, and my lack of technical knowledge is on record, ex
What I know, and my lack of technical knowledge is on record, external instruments use whatever they have while simply snycing to the current session. I have witnessed this with all my Native Instrument stuff for example. Whatever you set your session to, it simply works. I'm fairly certain from my experience thus far of BFD it is identical in behavior.
DonnyThompson, post: 437752, member: 46114 wrote: Could it be re
DonnyThompson, post: 437752, member: 46114 wrote: Could it be remotely possible that when you install the program, that it installs all the various drum samples at multiple sample rates? So, along with your basic 44, it's also installing 48, 88 and 96 versions of the samples as well, and whichever SR you are using in your project determines which version of the drum samples are being used?
I'm asking because I don't know...
That's what I thought too, but apparently it's not quite like that. I figured they track the samples at 192, then just SRC the collection to each different sameple rate, I'm wondering now, if the daw treats the sample stream, as live incoming audio, therefore making the base sample rate irrelevant, and essentially "re-sampling" at mix down.
I'm pretty sure its as Tony and I described. BFD syncs to the DA
I'm pretty sure its as Tony and I described. BFD syncs to the DAW and the samples are independent from the DAW's sample rate up until the tracks are bounced into the session.
I also use the Akai MPC Renaissance and it works the same. The OS of both these drum sequencers (BFD or MPC) run independently outside the DAW but can also load into the session like a plug-in. They sync to the session much like an external drum sequencer via MIDI, but better. Its awesome technology.
As an example, you can sample and program entire drum track(s) on its own through the BDF or MPC independent Control Panel and interfacing, then sync it to your song. Its sort of like having two DAW's. But, you can also edit the drum tracks in the DAW session like it was part of it.
The speed of the MPC USB interfacing is lightening fast. I use it to trigger most of my drum samples. All the drum samples are stored on a separate HD which also provides in sync latency to the session.
To date, this is the best way I've been able to program drums that can fool (make less obvious) the best old school engineers. Which I have done more than once ;)
Cool man, that makes a lot of sense. Samples will be on a nice
Cool man, that makes a lot of sense. Samples will be on a nice SSD. Very excited about this whole new setup and work flow. My live area is going to be more like a foley stage than 'main room'. I belive it works in Reverse where someone sends you a dead sound set of sounds, and you gotta go smack one of the snares around a few times to get some real life and room into a track.
So here's what I'm getting at. if I render say a snare track BFD 3 plugging into my session. For instance to save resources, or process the snare w my fave new plugins. the audio streams separately from BFD at 44.1 then is recorded back in at say 96? Is this a capture or just SRC, or I'm not sure of what process the audio is going thru.
kmetal, post: 437757, member: 37533 wrote: Is this a capture or
kmetal, post: 437757, member: 37533 wrote: Is this a capture or just SRC
If I am understanding you correctly, it is a capture of the 44.1 BFD sample. The SRC only happens after BFD is bounced in the session. Otherwise BFD is syncing in real time "simply put... syncing like an external midi sequencer/sampler to another DAW".
Right around 3 min in this video, the guy does what I'm talking
Right around 3 min in this video, the guy does what I'm talking about. Route audio from BFD to audio track, that's easy. If you notice his levels are hot into the DAW. so I'm just trying to figure out basically the digital signal path/gain staging internally. Like perhaps there's "up sampling" techniques and protocols, or what have you. I understand it's easy to slide the fader down in BFD mixer. How it turns from a 24/44.1 tracked sample, to lossless compressed property BFD compression format, to audio at 192 in my session interests me. Seems like alot going on there.
The way I understand it is the session is SRC ing the audio streaming from BFD, into the sessions sample rate for audio. The question is the resulting audio "re-recorded" at the new sample rate, as if it were new audio, in other words 44.1 drum sample re recorded at 96 into the session, or is the SRC taking place elsewhere within BFD. I just want to make sure immmakntaining good gain staging and processing practice.
To my experience, all libraries are too hot for a session so I
To my experience, all libraries are too hot for a session so I simply pull the audio volume down to match the session levels, then go from there.
BFD is so clear and lush sounding, its pretty simple to know when you are at the right place with your own session tracks. They key is getting "your" organic tracks to sound as good as BFD. Which is why I have always mentioned, its not the samples or digital audio that sucks today, its our cheaper pres, bad studio acoustic etc, mixing "good, better best" home studio together with great sounding HD samples. We tend to blame the samples rather than ourselves.
The key is learning how to degrade the samples to match our work so it kind of blends better. Less obvious pre-say.
This is where I found (especially) the Bricasti or some other analog reverb pass helpful. The analog pass seems to help glue samples with organic together, better. Which is also why I like the two DAW system.
Everything sounds artificial until we add or include the organic room acoustics. When we include the acoustic space in a recording it gives the effect that is happened in real life.Which is why I like one reverb, especially between two DAW's or on a main bus or master lane...
Another trick I like doing is adding a track of nature in the background of a song. You don't have to hear it to feel it. (connecting the natural world with technology)
Something to think about. If we heard our voices without ambiance or distance between two people, it would still be our real voice but sound like a sample.
The space is where it all changes for me and why I believe the secret to being a great mixing engineer has a lot to do with filtering out and reintroducing acoustic reflections better further down the mixing process.
I sold my Bricasti's because I needed money. I will be getting at least one back soon enough.
Sorry to hear about the bricasti, hopefully you'll be ready when
Sorry to hear about the bricasti, hopefully you'll be ready when the new one comes out.
You bring up a good point about samples. I'be always been of the camp to try and bring my live tracks sitting nice like the samples. Good gain technique, and micing can do surprisingly well with cheap gear. The BFD samples have always sounded great to me, and it's easier to dirty up clean than clean up dirty. I think it's a well rounded set. between gpdrummagog and BFD plenty of multi samples, and a simple way to extract midi from audio, and re enforce and replace, in a mix and mastering situation.
It's actually pretty crazy becase with band pass filters Ect, you could literally extract a grove and performance from a stereo song, and replace the drum sounds. You could like steal a performance almost, from any recording.
kmetal, post: 437763, member: 37533 wrote: Sorry to hear about t
kmetal, post: 437763, member: 37533 wrote: Sorry to hear about the bricasti, hopefully you'll be ready when the new one comes out.
Thanks.
Knowing a new version is around the corner, and even though Casey say's the next Bricasti generation can be added to the previous version, I tend to think there are some things that won't be quite that easy to add without some modifications. So that helped me get over the pain of selling those. Yup. I'm waiting for the next Gen with Delay added. If the delay is anything like the reverbs, is going to be out of this world.
@kmetal Kyle, I think you're over thinking the tracking from B
kmetal Kyle, I think you're over thinking the tracking from BFD :). It really is just recording at whatever your current session is set to. If your system can cope with 192 and BFD is running, you'll get 192 as far as I am aware. Only way to know that of course is try it in your system :).
My opinion fwiw.
Tony
audiokid, post: 437760, member: 1 wrote: Everything sounds artif
audiokid, post: 437760, member: 1 wrote: Everything sounds artificial until we add or include the organic room acoustics.
Amen.
Sometimes people forget that we don't listen to sounds in an aural vacuum. Even when we speak, we hear our own voices in relation to the spaces that we are in.
I remember walking into an an-echoic chamber once at Kent State, and after being in there for a minute or two, I started to actually feel kinda disoriented - for lack of a better description. At the very least, feeling "not right".
Makzimia, post: 437771, member: 48344 wrote: @kmetal Kyle, I thi
Makzimia, post: 437771, member: 48344 wrote: kmetal Kyle, I think you're over thinking the tracking from BFD :). It really is just recording at whatever your current session is set to. If your system can cope with 192 and BFD is running, you'll get 192 as far as I am aware. Only way to know that of course is try it in your system :).
My opinion fwiw.
Tony
Oh for sure tony. Belive it or not I mix by ear, and play improv licks on the guitar lol. This severe over anylization is just to feed curiosity of how samplers and this stuff works. Particularly because this new wave of work, I'm paying attention to file Managment and long term compatibility. End of the day is, BFD 1.5 blew my mind the first time a hit a key and the snare cracked. Very excited about it.
DonnyThompson, post: 437773, member: 46114 wrote: Amen.Sometimes people forget that we don't listen to sounds in an aural vacuum. Even when we speak, we hear our own voices in relation to the spaces that we are in.
I remember walking into an an-echoic chamber once at Kent State, and after being in there for a minute or two, I started to actually feel kinda disoriented - for lack of a better description. At the very least, feeling "not right".
I've never been into an anechoic chamber. Seems like it's worth experiencing the strangeness.
kmetal, post: 437792, member: 37533 wrote: BFD 1.5 blew my mind
kmetal, post: 437792, member: 37533 wrote: BFD 1.5 blew my mind the first time a hit a key and the snare cracked. Very excited about it
Don't get me wrong, I love live music, performances that start and end in one take and all that goes with musicianship. First and foremost, I am a musician but I am also awake to other things that make music and help us realize creative potential.
Sampling and spectra editing shares a common area to me.
Using spectral editing to completely differentiate /isolate bad room acoustic from source is coming.
- I live for the day I can completely remove an entire acoustic space from a recordings and replace it with my room of choice.
- This will make it possible for everyone to record in any kind of room and end up with awesome sounding music.
- This makes it possible for musicians with exception talent to achieve world class sound from a bedroom. And why not I say.
- This removes the need to build massive studios because we can do it all at home now.
Acoustic replacement is no different than all other technologies that were once a money maker, unreachable, unthinkable for people like me who had talent but no building to record my music. If only these days were available during my creative years.
Sound replacement is no different to the wheel being invented or having more colours to paint a picture.
If I was to build a studio today it would include room replacement.
Uncontrollable room acoustics (and I don't mean just the obvious) is a huge setback in music. Its as important as phase lining, delay setting, tuning drums and instruments etc are. Just because we build a nice studio doesn't mean the room acoustic should be set in stone.
Give me a few Bricasti's any day of the week over the old way of one room fits all. Studios are where you gather and make music but I'd be doing me and my clients a disservice if I didn't include additional ways to improve the acoustic space to help their music sound even more beautiful.
imho.
Glad to read about your new journey and interests Kyle. You are on track to me.
The information in this video below is just amazing (it gets very interesting half way through). It shows us where Spectral Editing is headed.
[GALLERY=media, 6]Michael Rubinstein: See invisible motion, hear silent sounds. Cool? Creepy? We can't decide - YouTube by audiokid posted Mar 19, 2015 at 9:05 PM[/GALLERY]
that clip was so freakin cool. Sound is after all vibration, un
that clip was so freakin cool. Sound is after all vibration, until the ear transduces it into 'sound'. These types of scientific and engineering things, always remind me not to take life too seriously.
spectral editing is really in the right track of fixing only what you want, and leaving the rest in tacked. It's going to make our copy paste and edge editing of today look so crude.
We re finally seeing 'digital' come into its own. It's slowly moving away from just emulating the older tape based ways of working. From mixing to busing to editing and tracking, its growing into its own. It's really brings new angles to what humans in general always thought of time and space. Perhaps we are just a vibrational reflection of ourselves from a yester or future, simply experiencing ourselves and the universe, in another octave. Lol in the DAW of the universe.
in the meantime, I wish a few more mucisians would spend $20 on blankets, and interfaces were higher quality, and that would solve a lot.
See ya back in the future !
Chris uses BFD, Kyle... you should talk with him; last time I he
Chris uses BFD, Kyle... you should talk with him; last time I heard, he was very happy with the samples... ( audiokid )