Waves, please consider making Slicing Sampler with one page GUI, drag and drop, slicing and pitch shifting/time stretching individual slices etc. There are just few of them on the market but each misses some of the features or user friendliness
That’s an interesting request! For whatever reason Waves does mostly effects, but to your point they have several softsynths and romplers, and they’re all really good!
I would LOVE something like you’re requesting from Waves. I use one in another DAW but it’s specific to that DAW only, and it’s not my preferred DAW. I’d love something like that I could use in Reaper…
And to your point – if it had the Waves styling, Waves UX, and Waves speed & stability – that would be perfect.
Maybe they’ll surprise us with a new VSTi at some point… And they haven’t done any kind of sampler yet so it might make sense to go that route.
I think this idea shows lots of merit. I’d probably add an eq to the feature list.
It’s tempting to add other things like compression, distortion, reverb and delay and though you could, I think most of us would still opt to use something else from our effects collection.
Oh, Simon. Your idea gets very interesting. Think about Waves’s tech that allows us to insert a plugin inside of Scheps Omni Channel, for example…
Imagine a slicer-sampler where you could drop Waves effects onto the slices themselves!
Normally we’d get that by using a slicer with multiple outs, but that adds a new track for every slice. GREAT if you want it, but cluttered if you don’t.
Or… What if the slicer had its own effects routing inside it? Direct sends, or like auxes. So you could load a little rack of Waves effects.
I’d enjoy a set of generic effects too though. Really, I’d probably be happy with whatever they made if they went down this route. I trust their judgement.
Brilliant idea about inserting your own plugins, modular style Sam. Wished I thought of it!!
If you were to throw in a kind of StudioRack style of signal flow, as you suggested, you could do all sorts of band splits or parallel processing. Very creative, very thought provoking. if its well scripted it then it has the potential be as lean and CPU friendly as your effects configuration would allow. I like the open slate approach of it too, but if you like to have certain effects enabled as standard, then just save it as a default.
To be honest. I’m not a big fan of a “track per slice” option and I certainly hate mixing projects where no-one has made the effort to simplify and consolidate all their ideas that have been fragmented across tracks.
As an extreme example I had a 140+ track project given to me, but by the time I cleaned and organised it all it turned out around 75 tracks. Thats really what they should have given me in the first place, or thereabouts. But my opinion doesn’t necessarily make the slice per track a bad idea, it should be optional.
In fact You could always make that configurable to so that, if you sampled a drum loop for example, you could send the kicks to one out, snares to another, and the hihats/cymbals to a third. That would be a more intelligent way of handling it in my opinion.
You make great points, Simon. I always enjoy your comments here and elsewhere. I’ve come to recognize your name in other places. =)
You’re so right about optimizing track count. I think I first learned that from some Waves CLA videos, but also Andrew Scheps. I guess everyone does it… Getting the track count down to something manageable and then properly distributing them across a set of submix busses is a critical step of mixing for sure. Especially with 75-140 tracks! That’s wild!
Another thing I learned from Scheps interviews is the idea of really focusing your time on the key elements and then all the extra little bits just have to be present. If you can hear them, that’s good enough. I suppose Scheps rear bus technique is useful in that regard because it pulls those subtle details forward… And if the compression is set right, there’s a “life” to the push and pull of how those background elements get brought up in the mix.
I like your idea of detailed routing option for tracks. That makes a LOT of sense and it’s clearly the “right” way to do it!
I’ve in fact adopted the approach myself where I work on tracks focusing more time on the “key” components, either from a composing perspective or a mixing perspective
This can vary a little from genre to genre, even song to song, but I’ve started to see little sense putting a lot of time into details that would be pushed to the back of the mix and be almost unnoticeable. So the approach not only makes sense, but can save you a lot of time.
OMG that makes so much sense!
For me what happened is I finished an album of my own material that was mostly composed on headphones. By the time I was mixing I had two sets of monitors: Kali LP-8s and a pair of Avantone mixcubes.
What I discovered is – headphones can make a person think there’s a LOT MORE SPACE than there actually is. My stuff was too dense. (And therefore hard to mix!)
My point is – since then I switched to composing on mono Avantones, which are frequency limited speakers. And like you said – I compose the song focusing on a small number of primary elements. A song actually doesn’t need that many parts !!! In the end, you end up with something that’s easier to mix and with stronger composition… and it translates better because there’s less frequency overlap between instruments.
That said, I still like the little details. The subtleties… But I no longer mess with that during composition. That stuff comes later, like “spice!”
You said “a lot of time into details that will be pushed back to the mix and almost unnoticeable”
You are RIGHT. But at the same time – those little details become magical after repeated listens!
And interestingly – people who use traditional instruments get those little details naturally. Little imperfections in the playing. Whether it’s guitar, drums, whatever. Whether it’s a feedback sound, or a mistake - whatever it is, it adds a lot of interest versus an electronic musician that uses VSTs and quantization.
An electronic musician might make arrangement changes, dropouts, samples, etc… I think those little details can be important, but they’re not the focal point and that “sweetening” is best done after the core song is otherwise finished!
To be clear, I agree with you and you make a great point!
Oh don’t get me wrong, the devil is in the details for sure. It’s just that someone is going to notice a 0.5db difference in the vocals before they will notice it in that little effect that is quite and only happens once ever 16 bars.
Sure, the effects need some attention to, but I would generally want to make them fit around the vocals and the music, not the other way around.