OT - sound quality

There is nothing wrong with the OTā€™s sound

8 Likes

Makes no sense what you are telling here. The most simple adjustment you can do on a sampler is already sound design. Like a sketchbook for sound.

In itā€™s own right. The Sidstation is not a recording or playback instrument.

Hmmā€¦ I have no gripes about the OTā€™s sound quality. 24bit is good. The filter being on by default effecting the sound is something Iā€™ve heard of but Iā€™ve never cared to take it off really.

I get the tropes of dated things but for me the OT doesnā€™t disappoint. Timeless, Pinnacle!

2 Likes

To trust your ears is all that matters!

Well if the data was based on a overview between different hardware samplers we are getting more specifics and nothing moreā€¦

And what about the A4 then? :wink:

The difference.

Why Elektron did not upgrade the Octa with the Digitakt hardware ?
Are the Mk2 units old stock upgraded with minimal costs?

1 Like

As has been mentioned countless times already, the DT has a HF boost; the OT is neutral. Some people prefer their samplers as neutral as possible.

5 Likes

Useless Video IMO.
His ot was set up to sample and play samples at 16bit.

4 Likes

The DT is mono and has a brighter sound than the source, that would not be an upgrade, OT is stereo and more transparent.

6 Likes

I think OT sounds good. I grew up using 4 tracks, then was lucky enough to spend some time with a 16 track reel to reel, then I taught myself FL Studio (pre-YouTube), then came Logic, Live, PT, etc. After getting tired of using a DAW, I got into these modern boxes. My point is: If youā€™re making music, then it all sounds good to someone. Maybe it matters to some people and thatā€™s totally fine, to each his own, but all these comparisons and tests seem like big wastes of music making time to me.

4 Likes

Haha. If youā€™d know sound design and mixing youā€™d know and understand that your ears are lying most of the time. Someone who understands that can work with that fact and create a great sound no matter what. Itā€™s an age old audiophile discussion where audiophiles even claim to hear the difference between power cables and that data showing otherwise is wrong.

Pleaseā€¦

And then to call others subjectiveā€¦

12 Likes

I refer to subjective that one should not focus too much on other peopleā€™s findings with a particular style or philosophy that one is engaged in. It is of special importance that one considers from their own experience!

So youā€™re saying we shouldnā€™t call each other novices and fanboys just because our experience is different? :wink:

Anyway, itā€™s one thing to not like a certain sound. Itā€™s another thing to call others inferior for not thinking the same. Saying data is wrong etc. Itā€™s the kind of toxic rhetroic that rubs me the wrong way. Iā€™ll leave it at that :slight_smile:

5 Likes

Totally agree.

It also depends on the situation if you are making music as a hobby or if you are releasing tracks and records out there.

If the latter well probably the point raised by Stimming does not have to be under estimated

Of all the instruments I have, the most important for me is having a good sounding converter with good sounding preamp.

It makes a huge difference when you listen at your final track/recording/piece of music.

Initially, a sampler has to be a neutral instrument for me. Of course everyone is free to think differently. However, about possibilities and creativity it does give an impression of how someone is using sampler. To be fair, most of the time itā€™s a bit superficial and I respect that to some degree.

1 Like

do most sound designers use samplers a lot? if youā€™re designing sound packs, samples or presets, Iā€™d think youā€™d use synths. and assume your customers are purchasing for use with their samplers/synths. unless youā€™re just using the sampler to further sculpt sounds youā€™ll sell as samplesā€¦? if so, I get the complaint that you want it to be as neutral as possible. soā€¦ use a computer where you can choose your sound quality piece by piece.

2 Likes

Give me an example in context where the OT output is the source of a real problem. Put the theoreticals aside.

Tell me, when does the difference matter and why?

2 Likes

Itā€™s easy to see from this example how much more creative it could be by using these sounds in the OT instead of working on a DAW.

2 Likes

The concept of the OT is very interesting and something else for a sampling instrument. Better audio converters is just one factor and there is a lot of talking about that.

So, letā€™s get hypothetical and put better audio converters inside the OT and hey why not also the fx from the Digi series and Overbridge. Quite obvious that would be the OT mk3.

Well, if Elektron would go for this kind of upgraded OT we are still pretty far out. To make the OT into a next generation for sound quality the focus must be on the sample engine, sound processing and some nice contrast between low and high fidelity elements in the fx section.

The latest granular sampling techniques are a bit out of context for the OT. Itā€™s good to limit the sound sculpting techniques vs a DAW system.

How much the difference matters here an example for a new ā€˜sample engineā€™ based on the idea of morphing from the Hartmann Neuron.

Next example for the ā€˜sound processing partā€™ with realtime manipulation of pitch, time, and formants.

Quite interesting that these 2 examples where long there before the OT was released. Imagine this with todays processing power as foundation inside the OT that would be major awesome!

2 Likes