[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: Real Time Sampling

Let me explain once again...

Sampling is a process of recording sound in a digital form in order to 
recreate it at a later time.

Real-time refers to a computer system that can process incoming data at 
the rate they are delivered.
In other words the reaction to a certain phenomenon is immediate, that 
is without delay
or, to be more precise, the response time does not exceed certain 
relatively small level.

Now,  let us think whether the recording itself can be delayed.
 From an analog perspective it seems enough to use very long cables 
between microphone and recorder,
like from earth to sun. This would give more than 8 minutes of delay - 
long enough to play a whole tune.
There is unfortunately no contradiction here, as the data are simply 
delivered later, but recorder immediately.
What about digital - we can buffer the incoming data and record it 
afterwards. Not a chance here either;
to put it in a buffer we have to sample it (again immediately), so all 
we've got is resampling.

What I am trying to say is that 'real-time' is inherent to 'recording', 
in particular to sampling, and
therefore redundant.

On the other hand when I look at the term 'non-real-time sampling' I 
imagine a musician who incidentally
pressed the record button after he played his piece. What would he get? 
The sound of silence,
provided his preamps are really good.

I hope this clarifies my opinion on this topic presented earlier.


Matt Davignon wrote:
> Admittedly, I usually say now that I play my instrument "with 
> electronics" or "with pedals". I prefer the term "real-time sampling" 
> more than looping for my own stuff.
> I think it requires less explanation. My experience is that most of 
> the people who know what "looping"is are themselves loopers. I've only 
> met a few non-loopers who know what it is.
> Also, as Matt Stevens alluded, "live looping" also evokes a particular 
> genre of music, which I don't think represents what I sound like. (In 
> the way that not every band who jams would identify as 'a jam band'.)
> I disagree that the "Real-time sampling" is redundant.  It specifies 
> that the sampled sounds are both being generated and recorded onstage, 
> and playing them back in the same session. (Although it doesn't 
> specify that the person making the sounds is the person sampling 
> them.) Non-real-time sampling would involve loading the samples into 
> your gear before your set begins.
> Matt Davignon
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Micha? Wiernowolski <mihalw@gmail.com 
> <mailto:mihalw@gmail.com>> wrote:
>     If I understand your question,
>     'Real Time Sampling' seems wrong to me. Firstly, the term 'Real
>     Time' is redundant, at least in case of sampling
>     sound. If you are not sure about this think of the opposite 'Non
>     Real Time Sampling', which is an oxymoron.
>     Now, 'Live sampling' would be a bit better, but it doesn't give
>     the information of  what do you do with those samples.
>     You could possibly play a tune without loops at all.
>     Cheers,
>     Michal
>     Matt Stevens wrote:
>>     Does anyone else prefer the term Real Time Sampling to Live
>>     Looping(apart from it being the name of a wonderful album by andy
>>     butler)?
>>     Just wondered?  Someone else suggested Guitar 2.0 to me in an
>>     email a few days ago!
>>     Any thoughts?
>>     Matt Stevens
>>     www.mattstevensguitar.com <http://www.mattstevensguitar.com>
>>     mattstevensguitar@btinternet.com
>>     <mailto:mattstevensguitar@btinternet.com>