Why is it done like this?

[sphelan]

I have seen some videos in the CM magazines where the music producers put a beat together using samples. They place and edit the samples on audio tracks in the chosen DAW.

I was just wondering if this is something they do purely according to personal preference or is there a more technical or musical reason why they would do this as opposed to loading the sample into, for example, Kontakt or Battery, and tweaking it there.

Can someone tell me if it's the same result at the end of the day or if there is a reason for using audit tracks as opposed to a sampler?

[terminal3]

I do it like that all the time when I'm using loops/sampled tracks.

One of the reasons is CPU - it's far, far easier on my system to avoid having a power-hungry sampler open if I don't need it.

[Dave Boulden]

Also....being treated as an audio track it's also easier to "see" what's going on as the waveforms are displayed. I quite often use the displayed peaks as a means of identifying audio regions like a sung vocal phrase or to visually see where the down beat is, so having loops appear in the same way means they fall into my normal workflow.

[sphelan]

Thanks guys!

So basically I should chuck out Battery and just drag the samples into audio tracks!!

[Dave Boulden]

Originally Posted by sphelan

So basically I should chuck out Battery and just drag the samples into audio tracks!!

Not necessarily... if you find using Battery suits your workflow better, or particularly allows more spontaneity in your music creation, then I'd stick with what you do already. In essence, you use whichever procedure suits each project best.

[sphelan]

Originally Posted by Dave Boulden

Not necessarily... if you find using Battery suits your workflow better, or particularly allows more spontaneity in your music creation, then I'd stick with what you do already. In essence, you use whichever procedure suits each project best.

Cheers Dave. It is basically down to personal preference I suppose, apart from the CPU load as T3 mentioned.

And I presume that from a processing point of view, the samples can be manipulated in a similar manner using either method.

[sureno]

LOL iv had some major arguements with my cousin over this very subject,
Working with audio
pro's: easier to see what your doing and fine arrangement and you can manipulate the audio better in my opinion.

con's: can prove a bit tedious, you are fairly commited to a sound once arrangement has been done, only option is to import another sound and start again with laying it out

working with a sampler

Pro's: easier to lay out, you are not commited to a sound e.g if you decide after adding a new bassline you don't like the kick, because you would often load a fair few kick samples into one patch (well i do) its easier to simply move the MIDI notes up and down or try different layers

con's: can be longer to demix a drum group if your only using 1 sampler (solo bounce each track and re import or assign individual instrument to individual aux/bus track), alot more cpu intensive (problem if on small machine) wont see the actual drum placement on the arrange window

[sphelan]

And now I'm torn between two lovers!!

I'm using both methods - schizophrenia - at the moment to work out which I'm more comfortable with. That's what I call making more work for myself.

[mrfracas]

Stick with your sampler Shane.

At the end of the day, as T3 suggests, using an audio track instead of an instrument helps drop the load on your CPU. If you find your load is beginning to get top-heavy, and you're experiencing crashes often, then solo one of your finished midi tracks (e.g. your percussion on Battery), bypass all effects to that track and bounce it dry, then reload that audio into an audio track with the same effects on, get rid of your present instrument track and save it as a different file. If you want to alter some of your fills, etc. further down the line, just go back into your previous file, carry out your edits and do the same again; replacing the audio track with the new one.

The saves CPU load for more effects, or another instrument, or just to make your playback run smoothly.

If you're not having issues, don't worry.

[sphelan]

Originally Posted by mrfracas

Stick with your sampler Shane.

At the end of the day, as T3 suggests, using an audio track instead of an instrument helps drop the load on your CPU. If you find your load is beginning to get top-heavy, and you're experiencing crashes often, then solo one of your finished midi tracks (e.g. your percussion on Battery), bypass all effects to that track and bounce it dry, then reload that audio into an audio track with the same effects on, get rid of your present instrument track and save it as a different file. If you want to alter some of your fills, etc. further down the line, just go back into your previous file, carry out your edits and do the same again; replacing the audio track with the new one.

The saves CPU load for more effects, or another instrument, or just to make your playback run smoothly.

If you're not having issues, don't worry.

Thanks for the tip Matt. Luckily, I don't notice too much CPU load on the new PC as it is...but then I'm not running many tracks at the same time!

[sphelan]

I was kinda starting to think "s***, after buying these vst and I could have done it in audio tracks all along!"

The next thought would have been "why bother learning how to use Battery so?". Actually, I like getting to know it and will keep at it. Like I said, loading samples into audio is something I'm exploring too...but I find it more cumbersome at the moment. Too early to choose between either method but sampler is ahead at the moment.

[mrfracas]

Originally Posted by sphelan

I was kinda starting to think "s***, after buying these vst and I could have done it in audio tracks all along!"

The next thought would have been "why bother learning how to use Battery so?". Actually, I like getting to know it and will keep at it. Like I said, loading samples into audio is something I'm exploring too...but I find it more cumbersome at the moment. Too early to choose between either method but sampler is ahead at the moment.

Those CM videos, and similar mag vids are just to give you tips about what you can do with your source audio. You could be there for ages watching them talk about programming midi tracks and setting up audio instruments; there are vids like that out there. But I guess that in watching these vids they expect you, as a producer, to use your own initiative about sourcing your audio; because that's not what they want to show you. Plus, I'm sure these producers pre-construct 'wicked samples' because they want to demo their tips with half-decent sounding loops, so you don't get bored by repetitive midi sequenced loops, or with the time it takes for them to program it all.

[sureno]

Originally Posted by mrfracas

Stick with your sampler Shane.

At the end of the day, as T3 suggests, using an audio track instead of an instrument helps drop the load on your CPU. If you find your load is beginning to get top-heavy, and you're experiencing crashes often, then solo one of your finished midi tracks (e.g. your percussion on Battery), bypass all effects to that track and bounce it dry, then reload that audio into an audio track with the same effects on, get rid of your present instrument track and save it as a different file. If you want to alter some of your fills, etc. further down the line, just go back into your previous file, carry out your edits and do the same again; replacing the audio track with the new one.

The saves CPU load for more effects, or another instrument, or just to make your playback run smoothly.

If you're not having issues, don't worry.

lol i forgot to mention which i prefered, well to put it simply i agree with mrfracas! stick with your sampler but dont be shy of using audio if you feel it's needed to be done in this method

[mrfracas]

Originally Posted by sureno

con's: can be longer to demix a drum group if your only using 1 sampler (solo bounce each track and re import or assign individual instrument to individual aux/bus track), alot more cpu intensive (problem if on small machine) wont see the actual drum placement on the arrange window

Yeh, that's a very good point. But if your using a single sampler, your mix might be more 'efficient' anyway.

[sphelan]

Originally Posted by sureno

lol i forgot to mention which i prefered, well to put it simply i agree with mrfracas! stick with your sampler but dont be shy of using audio if you feel it's needed to be done in this method

No, at the end of the day the more tools I try out the better. Eventually I suppose I will stick with one more or less. It was just an interesting question I had initially as I don't see many produces in videos doing up their drums in Battery, Reason's Redrum or using Sonar's Session Drummer. I was getting the impression it might be more "professional" to do it the other way. At the end of the day (everybody together) "if it sounds good it is good"!