Listening the Jon Hopkins albums especially "Contact Note" and the latest one..Inisdes - and in a SoS interview he said he used his old Korg Trinity for the synth sounds..

The pads and sounds on these albums are soo lush!

Surely in this day and age there is something that can sound as good if not better than a Trinity from 1996(?)

Are there any VST's anyone recommends? I have Absynth 4..

I think the pads sound warm, lush and thick but dont take up much space within the mix which maybe a Trinity strong point?

Most VST's today throw everything in to make a BIG preset which is a little unuseable in a mix

Is there a "thin sounding" for want of a better word! VST that can do lush pads like this?

How about something like this?

http://www.sampleoidz.co.uk/shop/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=51

Korg are pad masters! I've got a 01R/W amongst my collection and it still sounds fantastic today. I've also got the Korg Legacy Digital Collection VSTi's. This consists of the M1 and Wavestation. The Wavestation IMO is the ultimate pad machine but you have to spend time programming it. I've also got Spectrasonics Atmosphere, which does have fab sounding pads but it isn't a real programmers synth.

I've been keeping my eye out for a Korg TR-Rack (Trinity in a 1U rack). You can pick them up for under £200 these days. There's one in the SOS classifieds at the moment for £139...but it's too far away for me to consider. It's a bargain for someone else though!

I'd be surprised if you can't get what you want out of Absynth 4. If you're jabbing at the presets you might well be disappointed though. All it needs is some careful programming.

I've used Absynth for pads alongside my collection of real analogues and it can do a pretty good job - certainly up to the standard to match a 90s digital synth.

First time I've seen Korg heralded as 'pad masters' - I thought that honour might more deservingly go to Roland or Oberheim!

As alluded to, great pads are not always about huge sound in isolation. My Oberheim Xpander sounds phenominal in isolation, but needs space in a mix to allow its pads to breath (but when they do, oh wow!), but a less impressive Roland Jupiter pad sits very nicely and actually sounds bigger in a mix without dominating.

--------------------
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.

I mean intricate, evolving, atmospheric pads. Not the big fat wall of sounds the Obie and Roland are great for. :-)

Quote The Pearl Works:

---

I mean intricate, evolving, atmospheric pads. Not the big fat wall of sounds the Obie and Roland are great for. :-)

---

Ah! The reason I keep a Wavestation SR in my rack!

Touche, dude.

--------------------
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.

Plus Omnisphere has got a stack of this kind of stuff...

I use and love Omnisphere, Korg Legacy Digital, and Absynth, but lately I'm moving over more and more to Camel Audio's Alchemy, which can produce WONDERFUL lush evolving pads


Martin

--------------------
YewTreeMagic

I recently added an old Korg Wavestation SR to my rack, and it has some lovely evolving pads. And since they do this as a plug-in in the legacy digital edition, I would recommend that to you.

From what I've heard of Chameleon, THat sounds amazing... It's certianly up there on my synth want list

--------------------
New album 'Fantasy Bridge' available now!
Making of Fantasy Bridge Diary

Alchemy looks amazing!! especially with importing AIFF files and messing them up - how do the analog filters sound?

I did think of Cameleon 5000 but looks like Alchemy supersedes this??

Check out the demo mate

Alchemy is the most amazing Plug in instrument I have every used.. every sound is inspirational... makes a Trinity sound like a mouth organ IMHO
Filters are very nice.. the whole plug-in just has that edge of class.. and that's before you even start messing with your own samples..
Ooooh.. I am going off on one.. I'd better go and get a room with it



--------------------
MBP 17", PC 100(Nubus Protools) Motu 896, X-Station, Logic9, Reason6, Korg legacy, ACE, Alchemy, Emax II, E-Synth, Evolver MEK, Waldorf Pulse and Blofeld, AS Telemark, AS Leipzig-S

Quote Pitchfork:

---

I did think of Cameleon 5000 but looks like Alchemy supersedes this??

---

Yes - Alchemy is essentially the successor to Cam5000, and is markedly superior in pretty much *every* way...

If you want to read my SOS review of Alchemy, it's here:

www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr09/articles/camelaudioalchemy.htm

I was VERY impressed!

Quote Mr Spanky:

---

How about something like this?

http://www.sampleoidz.co.uk/shop/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=51

---

Frankly I'm amazed they get away with releasing a product like that spanky

They openly admit of their Korg Trinity Soundfont that "THIS SAMPLE PACK IS A MUST IT CONTAINS MANY PHAT SOUNDS FROM THIS MODULE."

...and then at the bottom have the nerve to say "ROYALTY FREE :EXCLUSIVE SOUNDS"

Perhaps we should mention his to Korg?


Martin

--------------------
YewTreeMagic

can you copyright a sound? Maybe they are not allowed to explicitly use the name 'Korg' but so what? If they call it 'Kork Trinidy' or something we all know what it means.

--------------------
www.myspace.com/shambolic-charm

Because those sounds are based on samples (it's a rompler), and you are re-recording copyright recordings to use in your product. So yes, there are copyright restrictions on doing that.

Surely that would mean you couldn't make a music recording with those sounds?

--------------------
www.myspace.com/shambolic-charm

No, that use is permitted, and it's also kinda implicit in what a musical instrument does.

Making your own music using an instrument you purchased, and blatantly re-recording the output to make a sample library for sale are two different things.

Quote Shambolic Charm:

---

can you copyright a sound?

---

Maybe not but you can copyright a 'recording' ... and a sample is a 'recording'.

That Soundfont is just SOOOO illegal on so many levels which I won't go into here.

And I will bet that the sounds on offer are not multi-sampled or looped and so are next to useless (I can give you reasons why you don't spend weeks/months multi-sampling and editing and looping and programming samples and then sell them for £5.75 ... discounted from £9.99).

But by all means, buy and get this and prove me wrong. However, I doubt I will be. In situations like this, I have not been proven wrong so far.

I am calling 'cowboy' on this one ... like the many charlatans that sell similar shite on eBay for a fiver!

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Forget the Trinity banks - I think Alchemy is the one!

I take it this can sound "thin" in order to sit in a mix, instead of massive arpeggiated one-finger band in a box tracks! of some presets

Quote Pitchfork:

---

Forget the Trinity banks - I think Alchemy is the one!

---

I agree that Alchemy is the one, but the Trinity banks raise an extremely important point that should be discussed.

Quote hollowsun:

---

That Soundfont is just SOOOO illegal on so many levels which I won't go into here.

I am calling 'cowboy' on this one ... like the many charlatans that sell similar shite on eBay for a fiver!

---

Legitimate sample developers are having their sales badly affected by those who churn out copies of other people's copyrighted material.

It's not just folk who sample hardware synths, but companies who sell stuff ripped from albums or even other sample collections and pass it off as their own. There are huge threads on some forums where people have bought such collections and can quickly identify where dozens of the samples originate. They are claimed to be 'license free' for use in your own music, but if anyone did use them and was caught it could be very messy. And yet such libraries continue to sell because so many people judge by how many gigabytes you get for your money.

Incredibly sad for the real developers who spend weeks or months developing their own original material, and then find people won't buy a library unless it's multi-gigabyte and selling for under £30.

I've known various sample developers who have already got out of the industry because they can't afford to pay the mortgage on their houses any more


Martin

--------------------
YewTreeMagic

I have to agree with Steve and Martin here.

Personally, I think that Korg should be informed and if it is legal they will ignore it.

However, this is not legal and it would take me pages to go into the implications of why it's not legal and what consequences it has for all the people involved in creating the original soundsets.

Almost every manufacturer that I have designed sounds for, and Steve would attest to this as well, the ownership is kept by the manufacturer and the content is paid for via licencing.
I have been, and still am to a degree, heavily involved with Emu for a number of their product soundsets both in hardware form and software. Right now, in conjunction with DSF, we have converted the entire Emu back catalogue into varying formats. Even though DSF and I created a number of those libraries in their original formats going way back to the 80s we still have to licence the content from Emu as they own the soundsets and formats.

So, unless Korg have dramatically changed their ownership and licencing agreements this product cannot be offered royalty/licence free.

I'll bet my left nut on that and am willing to forego it's use if proven wrong.

--------------------
Samplecraze
Stretch That Note

on the same subject - anyone else find it depressing that the most common search strings thrown up by Google when entering "Camel Audio Alchemy" are, in order:

1. torrent
2. rapidshare
3. review
4. presets
5. youtube
6. download
7. serial

... those in bold indicating people trying to rip it off.



--------------------
hourglass | random thoughts | doubledotdash!? collective

Quote hollowsun:

---

Quote Shambolic Charm:

---

can you copyright a sound?

---

Maybe not but you can copyright a 'recording' ... and a sample is a 'recording'.

That Soundfont is just SOOOO illegal on so many levels which I won't go into here.

And I will bet that the sounds on offer are not multi-sampled or looped and so are next to useless (I can give you reasons why you don't spend weeks/months multi-sampling and editing and looping and programming samples and then sell them for £5.75 ... discounted from £9.99).

But by all means, buy and get this and prove me wrong. However, I doubt I will be. In situations like this, I have not been proven wrong so far.

I am calling 'cowboy' on this one ... like the many charlatans that sell similar shite on eBay for a fiver!

---

I can tell you 100% those sound fonts/sample packs or what ever won't be properly multi sampled and are of the poorest quality out there without even downloading, most of the time sampled with the FX enabled too! ...it's the same junk you find on ebay.
It's the most annoying thing ever..ebay search D-50...about 219083120938 lame sample packs come up and not the item you are looking for

Quote onesecondglance:

---

on the same subject - anyone else find it depressing that the most common search strings thrown up by Google when entering "Camel Audio Alchemy" are, in order:

1. torrent
2. rapidshare
3. review
4. presets
5. youtube
6. download
7. serial

... those in bold indicating people trying to rip it off.

---

I have this with a number of my products.

I have even contacted Google, whilst submitting DMCAs, about how they can index and allow torrent and crack sites to reside above ours in search engines.

They never respond.

So long as these sites pay for advertising they will get preferential treatment from search engines.

--------------------
Samplecraze
Stretch That Note

Quote Martin Walker:

---

Quote Pitchfork:

---

Forget the Trinity banks - I think Alchemy is the one!

---

I agree that Alchemy is the one, but the Trinity banks raise an extremely important point that should be discussed.

---

Yes you are dead right Martin, that should be stopped - I meant my post from above as in my OP, for the sounds/pads - looks like Alchemy is perfect...

I think this thread has begun to highlight a bigger problem for legitimate sample developers being undercut by those who basically grab their content from others rather than create it themselves, and needs wider publicity.

This issue doesn't just result in lower incomes for the good guys who spend a lot more time genuinely developing new sounds from scratch - in many cases ripped off material is not as declared 'copyright free' to use in your own music, and particularly with loops ripped from well-known albums musicians who buy them could possibly get into trouble if they released music featuring them.

Not nice


Martin

--------------------
YewTreeMagic

does alchemy still do resynthesis in the way cameleon did?

--------------------
www.myspace.com/shambolic-charm

Much better. And faster.

Another interesting topic (I remember Feline's, and I'm sure Zukan might too. ).

Regards sampling and legalities, isn't it fine if sampling anything else other than the dry waveforms? Say, several waveforms are layered, programmed, modulated, and with effects over the top - effectively constituting a "patch", all done within the Trinity or whatever ROMpler synth you're using - wouldn't something like this be ok for commercial sample fodder since it's changed distinctly away from the basic ROM sounds? I thought it's just dry waveforms themselves that are protected?

As for the Trinity sound... I still have my Trinity! And incidently I also mainly use it as a pad/strings machine as that's what I feel it does best, as touched on by another user. The EGs and modulation capabilities are great for it, very evolving, particularly when you have combis involved (several patches playing all at once using the same midi channel) and when you're working the ribbon and joystick for its money. The Trinity also has a very clean and airy quality to it, very separated, in terms of 'space' for sounds.

--------------------
http://Infekted.org ~ Access Virus news & community

Quote Tímo:

---

Regards sampling and legalities, isn't it fine if sampling anything else other than the dry waveforms? Say, several waveforms are layered, programmed, modulated, and with effects over the top - effectively constituting a "patch", all done within the Trinity or whatever ROMpler synth you're using - wouldn't something like this be ok for commercial sample fodder since it's changed distinctly away from the basic ROM sounds? I thought it's just dry waveforms themselves that are protected?

---

If you've created those patches yourself using the raw waveforms and the synth engine then this should indeed be OK.

The big difference here is that this particular product is not being advertised as a set of original patches created using a particular synth, but with the slogans:

"Over 300 mb of legendary dance / techno sounds"

"THIS SAMPLE PACK IS A MUST IT CONTAINS MANY PHAT SOUNDS FROM THIS MODULE"

"ITS JUST LIKE HAVING THE REAL THING"


In other words, it sets out to copy the essence of the Korg Trinity for £5.75, even including its photo on the pack shot. Do you think for that price that those 300MB of sounds are original creations?


Martin

--------------------
YewTreeMagic

Even sampling *your* patches programmed by you and derived from copyright recordings for a sample library is not ok.

It's essentially the same thing as taking a hit song, using that song, even editing and mashing it up, to create a derivative work, and selling it unlicensed as your own work.

Analog synths are ok, as there are no copyright recordings involved - you cannot copyright analog-generated signals. You can't even (which I think is wrong) copyright your own synth patches, even though they may represent hours of work and skill.

But because romplers are based on recordings, those recordings are copyrightable, and thus you cannot create derivative works on those without a license from the manufacturer.

These terms are always explicitly stated on sample libraries from reputable manufacturers. With musical instruments, like a keyboard, it's a bit more of a grey area as there often isn't a license agreement as such. But the fair, intended use of a musical instrument is to make music, songs and so forth. But using it to generate a sample library from the recordings contained within does not come under the same usage terms, and is prohibited.

What if I make a sample library from my Petrof upright?

Am I not allowed to sell the library because Petrof own the copyright to the "sound" of the piano which they manufactured?

No, it's quite clear. There are no sound recordings that you are exploiting, therefore you are free to sample it.

The law is quite clear - you cannot create a derivative work from someone else's "sound recordings", as those sound recordings are copyrightable works, unless the copyright owner grants permission or a license to do so.

A piano contains no sound recordings, therefore no problem. A sampled electronic piano *does* contain sound recordings under copyright, therefore a problem.

Would a sawtooth waveform inside a Trinity be considered a "sound recording"?

If it's a sound recording, then in theory, yes. If it's synthetically generated by synth electronics, then no.

However, you'd have to be able to prove in court that an infringement of that particular sample was being done, and in the case of a raw simple waveform, that's impractically difficult to do - and if that was all that was being infringed, a manufacturer is unlikely to pursue such an action.

It's the more recognisable stuff that's easier to prove - like when the D-50 came out, then stuff people found exciting was the samples like DigitalNativeDance and stuff. Simple waveforms are easy to get, but those specific unique samples are hard, and consequently they are more eminently sample-able - and easier to prove an infringement of.

BTW I'm not a lawyer or anything, but this is my common understanding of this stuff. I'm not coming at it from the legal side, but from the soundware development side.

Quote Martin Walker:

---

Quote Tímo:

---

Regards sampling and legalities, isn't it fine if sampling anything else other than the dry waveforms? Say, several waveforms are layered, programmed, modulated, and with effects over the top - effectively constituting a "patch", all done within the Trinity or whatever ROMpler synth you're using - wouldn't something like this be ok for commercial sample fodder since it's changed distinctly away from the basic ROM sounds? I thought it's just dry waveforms themselves that are protected?

---

If you've created those patches yourself using the raw waveforms and the synth engine then this should indeed be OK.

The big difference here is that this particular product is not being advertised as a set of original patches created using a particular synth, but with the slogans:

"Over 300 mb of legendary dance / techno sounds"

"THIS SAMPLE PACK IS A MUST IT CONTAINS MANY PHAT SOUNDS FROM THIS MODULE"

"ITS JUST LIKE HAVING THE REAL THING"


In other words, it sets out to copy the essence of the Korg Trinity for £5.75, even including its photo on the pack shot. Do you think for that price that those 300MB of sounds are original creations?


Martin

---

I deplore scammers and pirate leeches as much as the rest of them, but I don't see anything incriminating from the description alone. There's nowhere it states that it samples the dry, raw waveforms of the Trinity.

It could be audio samples of a bunch of programmed, layered, modulated patches or the like, which I don't think would be copyrightable due to being 'performances', turning one thing (the ROM) into something sounding completely different from the individual raw waveforms themselves? In which case yes, a sampled collection of patches could easily be 300mb (if attack and releases are captured, along with evolving modulated filtering, amp ADSRs, effects, etc.), yes, the patches could be made "phat" prior to sampling via use of onboard processing (EQ, effects, etc.), and yes it would still sound like a Trinity because it was achieved using one.

(Incidently, the Trinity was never one for dance sounds. Not sure where anyone could make up 300mb worth of dance sounds from it!)

--------------------
http://Infekted.org ~ Access Virus news & community

Quote Tímo:

---

It could be audio samples of a bunch of programmed, layered, modulated patches or the like, which I don't think would be copyrightable due to being 'performances', turning one thing (the ROM) into something sounding completely different from the individual raw waveforms themselves?

---

The patches aren't, but as those samples are based on copyright recordings, then yes, the sound recording copyright still applies. Just as if I used a James Brown sample but filtered and envleoped and EQ'd it - it's still using someone elses recording and thus a breach of copyright.

Once again - it doesn't matter what you do to the sounds, the fact that those recordings (ROM samples) are being used to create a new commercial library without a licence is a no-no.

Of course, if the sounds really are totally unrecognisable, then it's going to be difficult to prove in a court, but that's a technicality.

Any synths which use recordings to create their sounds cannot legally be used to create a sample library unless you have explicit permission and/or a licence to do so.

Spectrasonics has an interesting FAQ about this as part of their Omnisphere docs.

Check the section entitled LEGAL/SAMPLING FAQs a fair way down the page at http://www.spectrasonics.net/instruments/omnisphere_faq.php - it covers a lot of ground being discussed here.

--------------------
Twas with respect and disbelief,
That I surveyed my new Motif ...

Got ya, so it's termed a "derivative", regardless of the amount of modulation, layering and processing used.

That's cleared things up.

--------------------
http://Infekted.org ~ Access Virus news & community