Fairlight-CMI

Hi there,

Because of the resampling in the cd-rom of the IIx sample set, the information has already 
been lost before you start this expriment , as they are not bit for bit digital copies : they 
are variable unclocked analogue signals from the fairlight, resampled a an arbitary bitrate 
through an aditional A/D by the creators of the libaray. 

Probably the same is true of the Art of Sampling CD.

I guess there is no really way to do the test apart from getting you own fairlight samples at 
32 bit 192Khz, transfereing to a software sampler and a/b ing the fairlights transpose and 
the software sampler transpose.

One of the best examples though on record, is Instruments of Darkness by the Art of noise 
on In Visible Silence : there is a massive pitchbend of a sample being pitchshitfed down till 
it starts breaking apart. If you think about how a modern sampler sounds when you start 
pitching down that far, it should give an idea of the textural differences.

Cheers,

A







--- In Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com, "matthew_weiner_2000" <matthew.weiner@...> 
wrote:
>
> Arron, as before, good, thoughtful stuff.  In fact, I may have read
> your post earlier on KVR -- I liked it then as well!  I particularly
> liked your point regarding how people don't really get creative about 
> microediting, which--I agree--has become something of a lost artform
> in the wake of this machine's demise.
> 
> At any rate, I see what you mean.  I'm getting more satisfied as once
> you've added in gated sounds and the composite thing, you do really
> start approaching that cut-up sound I was talking about.  
> 
> One question about how different the machine sounded than modern
> samplers.  I was thinking that I'd be interested in hearing a
> side-by-side A/B-ing of a Fairlight sound as played by the Fairlight
> and as played by a modern sampler, realizing that you would want to
> transpose them to the other's sampled to hear the biggest difference.  
> 
> But since each sound with the Fairlight IIx sample library has two
> samples apiece, usually an octave or two apart, for almost every
> sound, I realized I could do it on my own.  So, I just tried A/B-ing
> one of the vibes sounds, "Rhythm1" (which was sampled 3 octaves lower)
> and "Tibet1" that way.  And honestly, some aliasing aside, there
> wasn't a marked difference there.  
> 
> This isn't to refute your point about multiplexing, misaligned cards
> or the analog filters--you are the one with the machine, I'm trying to
> recreate it--but I am straining a bit to hear the difference you're
> talking about.
> 
> --- In Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com, "Eight to Infinity (Arron)"
> <arron@> wrote:
> >
> > HI there : 
> > 
> > I glad to hear youre getting closer. Unfortunaly, you might be at
> the point where you might 
> > have to recognise the limitations of how close you can ultimately
> get. This is a post I made 
> > to the KVRAUDIO list describing why the fairlight is unique, and why
> you cant emulate in 
> > software with the current state of play in software design : it
> refers mostly to the Series III, 
> > but im sure some of the series I and II owners will have their own
> thoughts :
> > 
> > --------
> > 
> > The series III specification wise still holds its own against
> everything else Ive got. Sampling 
> > up to 100 Khz theoretical maximum at 16 bits still sounds very nice. 
> > 
> > But is it still unique ? 
> > 
> > The series III comes with 3 sequencers : Page R, which is basically
> a tracker, CAPS which is 
> > like an old version of cubase, and MCL which is a text based
> programatic sequencer. 
> > 
> > What makes it special is that for each step on the grid, you can
> have a different sound 
> > loaded, like an old amiga tracker, so for doing those old tracker
> tricks, its great, especially 
> > page-R. CAPS is clearly outdated, and not something thats very
> usefull anymore. MCL is 
> > great, but ive never got the hang of it, and might have been great
> for achedemic electronic 
> > music, if more fairlights had found their way into that environment. 
> > 
> > What gives the fairlights a unique sound is due to its brute force
> engineering architecture : 
> > 
> > You have the digital side : with a digital voice card which controls
> the data buffers etc for 
> > each 16 voices, which routes to an analogue voice card per voice,
> which has a sample 
> > playback occilator, and the rest of each voice is an analogue
> subtractive structure. 
> > 
> > So, you get all the nice sound of analogue filters etc. And of
> course, misalignment between 
> > the settings on the cards ensures each voice sounds a bit different. 
> > 
> > Also, each playback occilator transposes not by multiplexing, but by
> altering the clock 
> > playback speed. This means a note slowed down because it is played
> lower sounds very 
> > different than it does on a multiplexed system such as an akai S6000. 
> > 
> > Also if you play a note quiter, the analogue VCA levels are altered,
> not the sample 
> > playback depth, so even a quiet not is 16 bit, giving a lot more
> dynamic range. 
> > 
> > There is no multiplexed output either : each voice is exposed as an
> XLR output, and you 
> > have to mix them on an 16 channel analogue desk, so you get into
> that "Analogue 
> > summing" vs digital multiplexing argument. Also it ensures there is
> absolutely no 
> > dithereing going on anywhere in the system. 
> > 
> > The upshot of all this, is that sounds a million miles away from a
> s6000, or softsynth. 
> > 
> > In terms of interface : its very simple, and very focused. Its easy
> to do what you need in 
> > terms of sample editing, and is great for zooming in and doing
> "micro" editing and mixing 
> > different samples and crossfading to create new sounds : mixing a
> tr808 bassdrum with a 
> > bass guitar sample to produce a playable hybrid etc. The sort of
> thing people are too lazy 
> > to do these days. 
> > 
> > Lastly there is the additive and resynthesis functionality. Load in
> a sample, click analyse, 
> > and go in and manually redraw some of the FFT frames, interpolate
> between them, etc etc. 
> > Additive is the same thing, but starting with a blank waveform. I
> dont know of any current 
> > program that does that, maybe cameleon ? I know it does additive,
> but i dont know about 
> > resynthesis. And then you have all the standard analogue subtractive
> on the outputs. 
> > 
> > It has 4 midi ins and outs, which are rock solid in timing, and a
> funky graphics pad for 
> > drawing stuff. It has a keyboard with keys dedicated to rests,
> sharps and steps to make 
> > programming much quicker than using generic keyboard shortcuts. 
> > 
> > It comes with a beutifull fully weighted keyboard, with a built in
> remote keypad, and you 
> > can get a extended MFX controller with even has a secondary display,
> and some of the 
> > alphanumeric keys are velocity sensative so you can triggers samples
> without having to 
> > reach over to the main keyboard. You can plug in a mouse to use
> instead of the graphics 
> > tablet if you prefer. 
> > 
> > There is a retrofit board to give you colour VGA output, and you can
> also get a dedicated 
> > DSP timestretch card. 
> > 
> > So its a pretty funky and unique beast ! And the additive and
> re-synthesis subsystems 
> > where never really tapped at the time, as sampling was the thing, so
> there's still plenty of 
> > room for original sounds beyond SARR1.VC 
> > 
> > Cheers, 
> > 
> > A 
> > 
> > /// edited to add : ive heard the IIX library, and as may possibly
> be obviosus from the 
> > above, playing a fairlight sample back on another sampler sounds
> nothing at all like a real 
> > fairlight, for all the reasons above. If yove heard the IIX sample
> library, and think it sounds 
> > nothing special : I agree with you. If youve heard a IIX or series
> III playing back the same 
> > samples, its a very different experiance.
> >
>