Zampled gone down

Need some fresh sounds? Want to show off your sound design skills? Here's the place!
sleep1979

Post 26 Jun 2019

https://zampled.com/

Hmmm
Not that i wanted to buy them
but i did look into them once
but one product and now there gone
Refill is still in sale on props
But hmmmπŸ˜‚
Last edited by TheWalrus on 26 Jun 2019, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
esselfortium
Posts: 1270
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 26 Jun 2019

Nothing of value was lost. They were another rip-off operation like Softphonics.

sleep1979

Post 26 Jun 2019

esselfortium wrote: ↑
26 Jun 2019
Nothing of value was lost. They were another rip-off operation like Softphonics.
dubious isn't it

User avatar
esselfortium
Posts: 1270
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 26 Jun 2019

I'm not sure of the actual origin(s) of their samples, but I am positive that they've been ripped from another library.

Here's a video clip showing one of the mistakes that gives it away:


They carelessly resampled this instrument from a library that wasn't chromatically sampled, so they have groups of multiple samples that are just the same recording played back at different speeds. The low notes here are all one recording played at different pitches, then as it gets a bit higher in the scale, there's a new recording for every two samples, with the in-between ones being repitched. This would not happen when sampling a live instrument, it would only happen when using an auto-sampling tool to record every note from a preexisting sample library.

This really shouldn't be sold in the RE shop and included in Rigs bundles.

sleep1979

Post 26 Jun 2019

esselfortium wrote: ↑
26 Jun 2019
I'm not sure of the actual origin(s) of their samples, but I am positive that they've been ripped from another library.

Here's a video clip showing one of the mistakes that gives it away:


They carelessly resampled this instrument from a library that wasn't chromatically sampled, so they have groups of multiple samples that are just the same recording played back at different speeds. The low notes here are all one recording played at different pitches, then as it gets a bit higher in the scale, there's a new recording for every two samples, with the in-between ones being repitched. This would not happen when sampling a live instrument, it would only happen when using an auto-sampling tool to record every note from a preexisting sample library.

This really shouldn't be sold in the RE shop and included in Rigs bundles.
your very clever for figuring that out and hopefully props takes notice of your video
looks like they have scarpered now anyway
did you just upload that video just today ? :-)

sleep1979

Post 26 Jun 2019

Good job i never bought it then ( I got session strings 2 kontakt for cheap )
but makes me worry about buying any refills from some company's in the future .

User avatar
esselfortium
Posts: 1270
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 26 Jun 2019

TheWalrus wrote: ↑
26 Jun 2019
esselfortium wrote: ↑
26 Jun 2019
I'm not sure of the actual origin(s) of their samples, but I am positive that they've been ripped from another library.

Here's a video clip showing one of the mistakes that gives it away:


They carelessly resampled this instrument from a library that wasn't chromatically sampled, so they have groups of multiple samples that are just the same recording played back at different speeds. The low notes here are all one recording played at different pitches, then as it gets a bit higher in the scale, there's a new recording for every two samples, with the in-between ones being repitched. This would not happen when sampling a live instrument, it would only happen when using an auto-sampling tool to record every note from a preexisting sample library.

This really shouldn't be sold in the RE shop and included in Rigs bundles.
your very clever for figuring that out and hopefully props takes notice of your video
looks like they have scarpered now anyway
did you just upload that video just today ? :-)
I recorded it a while ago and uploaded it today. After the whole Softphonics ripoff fiasco, the oddities I had noticed in Euphonic Strings suddenly became far more suspect and I decided to look a bit more closely into it.

sleep1979

Post 26 Jun 2019

I mean its Β£44 still
https://www.propellerheads.com/shop/pro ... c-strings/

Propellerhead needs to get onto checking the legitimateness of companies ,
because people that pay don't want to pay for illegal stuff do they really? its just not on.
thanks for bringing this to attention lets hope they take notice of your video .

User avatar
Loque
Posts: 6628
Joined: 28 Dec 2015

Post 26 Jun 2019

TheWalrus wrote: ↑
26 Jun 2019
I mean its Β£44 still
https://www.propellerheads.com/shop/pro ... c-strings/

Propellerhead needs to get onto checking the legitimateness of companies ,
because people that pay don't want to pay for illegal stuff do they really? its just not on.
thanks for bringing this to attention lets hope they take notice of your video .
Oh...that one...And this was zampled and than sampled from Zampled?
:reason: 11, Win10 64Bit.

User avatar
Magnus
Posts: 139
Joined: 03 Jul 2018

Post 28 Jun 2019

esselfortium wrote: ↑
26 Jun 2019
TheWalrus wrote: ↑
26 Jun 2019


your very clever for figuring that out and hopefully props takes notice of your video
looks like they have scarpered now anyway
did you just upload that video just today ? :-)
I recorded it a while ago and uploaded it today. After the whole Softphonics ripoff fiasco, the oddities I had noticed in Euphonic Strings suddenly became far more suspect and I decided to look a bit more closely into it.
Whilst there may be some sample oddities, and their Squarespace account has now expired; that alone isn't proof that this entire library is just a resample job and contains copyright infringement.

The Softphonics video I saw, back when that scandal broke, demonstrated it to be unequivocal that the source files in that case were stolen.
Last edited by Magnus on 08 Jul 2019, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
esselfortium
Posts: 1270
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 28 Jun 2019

Magnus wrote: ↑
28 Jun 2019
esselfortium wrote: ↑
26 Jun 2019


I recorded it a while ago and uploaded it today. After the whole Softphonics ripoff fiasco, the oddities I had noticed in Euphonic Strings suddenly became far more suspect and I decided to look a bit more closely into it.
Whilst there may be some sample oddities, and their Squarespace account has now expired; that alone isn't proof that this entire library is just a resample job and contains copyright infringement.

The Softphonics video I saw, back when that scandal broke, demonstrated it to be unequivocal that the source files in that case were stolen. But your video above doesn't prove that the product is stolen. I would be careful saying such things as "They were another rip-off operation like Softphonics." as that is libel and they could sue you.
I would consider the copious amounts of repitched samples a pretty significant smoking gun on their own, because there is no plausible reason for that to happen other than careless use of a sample ripping tool, but there are plenty of other things that don't add up.

Many samples in Euphonic Strings have audible phasing problems, the result of layering multiple solo instrument samples on top of each other. This is easily audible in the "4 Violins No Vibrato" NN-XT patch. For a library claiming to have been recorded by pros, the professional touch is absolutely absent here: if you're recording a strings library and you need to resort to poorly layering samples for four violins, something is severely wrong with your approach. Ensembles are not recorded this way to begin with, but this kind of phasing wouldn't happen unless there was some re-pitching of same samples going on again. Also, opening up those samples in the sample editor, in addition to revealing some extremely shoddy loop crossfading work, some of them continue for one or two seconds longer on the left channel than the right. Listening to each side by itself, it's noticeable that the right-panned violins simply end like a basic midi note, while the left side violins have an actual note-release recorded. That's an "oops, I ripped this from two libraries that had different feature sets" oversight, not something that could possibly happen when recording your own samples of actual violinists in a room. (No, not even if you are recording a soloist four times. Unless you decided to stop recording in the middle of a note sometimes and just add a fadeout...)

In this one, notice how the shape of the left side's waveform completely changes two seconds before the end of the sample. It's an audible change, too: the phasing goes away and you're left with one solo violin playing non-vib. Strangely, the samples layered with it until that point actually are playing heavy vibrato, despite this specifically being a "No Vibrato" patch. Weird how that would happen when recording actual violinists in a studio (it wouldn't possibly).

Another thing: if this were actually four violinists recorded in a room, there would not be this clean of a split between left and right channels! In that case, given that these four-violins patches were created by layering a few solo violin recordings together, there is a strange lack of any "solo violin" patches here at all. If they went through the considerable trouble of recording them, why not?

The tremolo and trill samples audibly contain recordings at different speeds playing out of sync with one another. It sounds like there's repitched layers of the sample sample in these as well, just like in most of the other patches.

Another tell is the absolutely inexplicable violin portamento slide samples. These were cropped from longer recordings, very inconsistently (sometimes even with non-zero-crossing clicks on one channel or both!), and are played via combinators that simultaneously play the short slide sample via one NNXT while fading in a standard sustain via another. The sustain fade-in has no relation to the length or timing of the slide samples, and is just an ADSR setting dependent on velocity, totally hosing the intended effect. This is such a klutzy setup that there is absolutely no way it would be done if the samples were actually recorded with the intention of making a Reason refill.

There are round-robins included for these slides, but they're clearly made from clumsily layering samples together, because most of them start from completely different intervals and thus sound utterly sour. But let's consider it for a moment: we're here in the studio, paying for time to record a sample library, and we can either use this time to record slides into full sustains so that they'll sound natural instead of like two samples pasted together, or we can use it to record every slide three times, most of which are sour notes.

Making matters worse, the slides have their own EQ to try making them fit in better with the sustains. Again, if this were actually recorded 'using a pro signal chain by pros with pro gear' or whatever their website claimed, or even taken from the same sample source, these kludges wouldn't exist.

Meanwhile, the solo contrabass samples are presented in mono, for no apparent reason. How's that for a 'pro signal chain' for orchestral recording?

The manual says that you can "apply volume modulation in a similar way to a string player applying vibrato for a pleasingly human, expressive feel", but vibrato is pitch modulation, not volume modulation. A strange mistake to make when recording a strings library where that distinction is crucial to doing your job.

There are no credits listed of any of the performers, seemingly no photos of the recording sessions (only some stock photos on the old Zampled site), and no information about the recording engineers or anyone else. Were they too ashamed of the questionable quality of the result, and asked not to be credited? These names and session pictures would surely be prominently featured as promotional material to help sell the library, especially given the vague claims of
The thousands of sampled notes were played by highly skilled musicians and obsessively captured by our engineers at London's famous Livingston Studios. We used the same world-class signal path featured in countless hit records and classical recordings.
The performers and engineers are ghosts who don't exist.

"Zampled" has never released another library and has only ever offered Euphonic Strings, a complete strings library that sells for very cheap and was only ever released to the small niche audience for Reason ReFills. The product description on its shop page says its contains over 6300 samples. Creating this library legitimately, even with all its inexplicable faults, would be an expensive production. It currently sells for 49 dollars, and it's not even on sale. Comparing its price with any legitimate offering is telling. There is no way to recoup costs producing a library like this and selling it so cheaply to such a small audience.

There is an endless list of things that don't add up about Euphonic Strings.

User avatar
Magnus
Posts: 139
Joined: 03 Jul 2018

Post 28 Jun 2019

esselfortium wrote: ↑
28 Jun 2019
Magnus wrote: ↑
28 Jun 2019


Whilst there may be some sample oddities, and their Squarespace account has now expired; that alone isn't proof that this entire library is just a resample job and contains copyright infringement.

The Softphonics video I saw, back when that scandal broke, demonstrated it to be unequivocal that the source files in that case were stolen. But your video above doesn't prove that the product is stolen. I would be careful saying such things as "They were another rip-off operation like Softphonics." as that is libel and they could sue you.
I would consider the copious amounts of repitched samples a pretty significant smoking gun on their own, because there is no plausible reason for that to happen other than careless use of a sample ripping tool, but there are plenty of other things that don't add up.

Many samples in Euphonic Strings have audible phasing problems, the result of layering multiple solo instrument samples on top of each other. This is easily audible in the "4 Violins No Vibrato" NN-XT patch. For a library claiming to have been recorded by pros, the professional touch is absolutely absent here: if you're recording a strings library and you need to resort to poorly layering samples for four violins, something is severely wrong with your approach. Ensembles are not recorded this way to begin with, but this kind of phasing wouldn't happen unless there was some re-pitching of same samples going on again. Also, opening up those samples in the sample editor, in addition to revealing some extremely shoddy loop crossfading work, some of them continue for one or two seconds longer on the left channel than the right. Listening to each side by itself, it's noticeable that the right-panned violins simply end like a basic midi note, while the left side violins have an actual note-release recorded. That's an "oops, I ripped this from two libraries that had different feature sets" oversight, not something that could possibly happen when recording your own samples of actual violinists in a room. (No, not even if you are recording a soloist four times. Unless you decided to stop recording in the middle of a note sometimes and just add a fadeout...)

In this one, notice how the shape of the left side's waveform completely changes two seconds before the end of the sample. It's an audible change, too: the phasing goes away and you're left with one solo violin playing non-vib. Strangely, the samples layered with it until that point actually are playing heavy vibrato, despite this specifically being a "No Vibrato" patch. Weird how that would happen when recording actual violinists in a studio (it wouldn't possibly).

Another thing: if this were actually four violinists recorded in a room, there would not be this clean of a split between left and right channels! In that case, given that these four-violins patches were created by layering a few solo violin recordings together, there is a strange lack of any "solo violin" patches here at all. If they went through the considerable trouble of recording them, why not?

The tremolo and trill samples audibly contain recordings at different speeds playing out of sync with one another. It sounds like there's repitched layers of the sample sample in these as well, just like in most of the other patches.

Another tell is the absolutely inexplicable violin portamento slide samples. These were cropped from longer recordings, very inconsistently (sometimes even with non-zero-crossing clicks on one channel or both!), and are played via combinators that simultaneously play the short slide sample via one NNXT while fading in a standard sustain via another. The sustain fade-in has no relation to the length or timing of the slide samples, and is just an ADSR setting dependent on velocity, totally hosing the intended effect. This is such a klutzy setup that there is absolutely no way it would be done if the samples were actually recorded with the intention of making a Reason refill.

There are round-robins included for these slides, but they're clearly made from clumsily layering samples together, because most of them start from completely different intervals and thus sound utterly sour. But let's consider it for a moment: we're here in the studio, paying for time to record a sample library, and we can either use this time to record slides into full sustains so that they'll sound natural instead of like two samples pasted together, or we can use it to record every slide three times, most of which are sour notes.

Making matters worse, the slides have their own EQ to try making them fit in better with the sustains. Again, if this were actually recorded 'using a pro signal chain by pros with pro gear' or whatever their website claimed, or even taken from the same sample source, these kludges wouldn't exist.

Meanwhile, the solo contrabass samples are presented in mono, for no apparent reason. How's that for a 'pro signal chain' for orchestral recording?

The manual says that you can "apply volume modulation in a similar way to a string player applying vibrato for a pleasingly human, expressive feel", but vibrato is pitch modulation, not volume modulation. A strange mistake to make when recording a strings library where that distinction is crucial to doing your job.

There are no credits listed of any of the performers, seemingly no photos of the recording sessions (only some stock photos on the old Zampled site), and no information about the recording engineers or anyone else. Were they too ashamed of the questionable quality of the result, and asked not to be credited? These names and session pictures would surely be prominently featured as promotional material to help sell the library, especially given the vague claims of
The thousands of sampled notes were played by highly skilled musicians and obsessively captured by our engineers at London's famous Livingston Studios. We used the same world-class signal path featured in countless hit records and classical recordings.
The performers and engineers are ghosts who don't exist.

"Zampled" has never released another library and has only ever offered Euphonic Strings, a complete strings library that sells for very cheap and was only ever released to the small niche audience for Reason ReFills. The product description on its shop page says its contains over 6300 samples. Creating this library legitimately, even with all its inexplicable faults, would be an expensive production. It currently sells for 49 dollars, and it's not even on sale. Comparing its price with any legitimate offering is telling. There is no way to recoup costs producing a library like this and selling it so cheaply to such a small audience.

There is an endless list of things that don't add up about Euphonic Strings.
Wow! Top marks for such a comprehensive reply. You make some very strong arguments; and all of these peculiarities do add up to something that has all the hallmarks of being a fraudulent end product masquerading as legitimate.

Where do you suggest the source material samples originate from if they weren't created or licensed by Zampled and are in fact a rip-off?

sleep1979

Post 28 Jun 2019

esselfortium wrote: ↑
28 Jun 2019
Magnus wrote: ↑
28 Jun 2019


Whilst there may be some sample oddities, and their Squarespace account has now expired; that alone isn't proof that this entire library is just a resample job and contains copyright infringement.

The Softphonics video I saw, back when that scandal broke, demonstrated it to be unequivocal that the source files in that case were stolen. But your video above doesn't prove that the product is stolen. I would be careful saying such things as "They were another rip-off operation like Softphonics." as that is libel and they could sue you.
I would consider the copious amounts of repitched samples a pretty significant smoking gun on their own, because there is no plausible reason for that to happen other than careless use of a sample ripping tool, but there are plenty of other things that don't add up.

Many samples in Euphonic Strings have audible phasing problems, the result of layering multiple solo instrument samples on top of each other. This is easily audible in the "4 Violins No Vibrato" NN-XT patch. For a library claiming to have been recorded by pros, the professional touch is absolutely absent here: if you're recording a strings library and you need to resort to poorly layering samples for four violins, something is severely wrong with your approach. Ensembles are not recorded this way to begin with, but this kind of phasing wouldn't happen unless there was some re-pitching of same samples going on again. Also, opening up those samples in the sample editor, in addition to revealing some extremely shoddy loop crossfading work, some of them continue for one or two seconds longer on the left channel than the right. Listening to each side by itself, it's noticeable that the right-panned violins simply end like a basic midi note, while the left side violins have an actual note-release recorded. That's an "oops, I ripped this from two libraries that had different feature sets" oversight, not something that could possibly happen when recording your own samples of actual violinists in a room. (No, not even if you are recording a soloist four times. Unless you decided to stop recording in the middle of a note sometimes and just add a fadeout...)

In this one, notice how the shape of the left side's waveform completely changes two seconds before the end of the sample. It's an audible change, too: the phasing goes away and you're left with one solo violin playing non-vib. Strangely, the samples layered with it until that point actually are playing heavy vibrato, despite this specifically being a "No Vibrato" patch. Weird how that would happen when recording actual violinists in a studio (it wouldn't possibly).

Another thing: if this were actually four violinists recorded in a room, there would not be this clean of a split between left and right channels! In that case, given that these four-violins patches were created by layering a few solo violin recordings together, there is a strange lack of any "solo violin" patches here at all. If they went through the considerable trouble of recording them, why not?

The tremolo and trill samples audibly contain recordings at different speeds playing out of sync with one another. It sounds like there's repitched layers of the sample sample in these as well, just like in most of the other patches.

Another tell is the absolutely inexplicable violin portamento slide samples. These were cropped from longer recordings, very inconsistently (sometimes even with non-zero-crossing clicks on one channel or both!), and are played via combinators that simultaneously play the short slide sample via one NNXT while fading in a standard sustain via another. The sustain fade-in has no relation to the length or timing of the slide samples, and is just an ADSR setting dependent on velocity, totally hosing the intended effect. This is such a klutzy setup that there is absolutely no way it would be done if the samples were actually recorded with the intention of making a Reason refill.

There are round-robins included for these slides, but they're clearly made from clumsily layering samples together, because most of them start from completely different intervals and thus sound utterly sour. But let's consider it for a moment: we're here in the studio, paying for time to record a sample library, and we can either use this time to record slides into full sustains so that they'll sound natural instead of like two samples pasted together, or we can use it to record every slide three times, most of which are sour notes.

Making matters worse, the slides have their own EQ to try making them fit in better with the sustains. Again, if this were actually recorded 'using a pro signal chain by pros with pro gear' or whatever their website claimed, or even taken from the same sample source, these kludges wouldn't exist.

Meanwhile, the solo contrabass samples are presented in mono, for no apparent reason. How's that for a 'pro signal chain' for orchestral recording?

The manual says that you can "apply volume modulation in a similar way to a string player applying vibrato for a pleasingly human, expressive feel", but vibrato is pitch modulation, not volume modulation. A strange mistake to make when recording a strings library where that distinction is crucial to doing your job.

There are no credits listed of any of the performers, seemingly no photos of the recording sessions (only some stock photos on the old Zampled site), and no information about the recording engineers or anyone else. Were they too ashamed of the questionable quality of the result, and asked not to be credited? These names and session pictures would surely be prominently featured as promotional material to help sell the library, especially given the vague claims of
The thousands of sampled notes were played by highly skilled musicians and obsessively captured by our engineers at London's famous Livingston Studios. We used the same world-class signal path featured in countless hit records and classical recordings.
The performers and engineers are ghosts who don't exist.

"Zampled" has never released another library and has only ever offered Euphonic Strings, a complete strings library that sells for very cheap and was only ever released to the small niche audience for Reason ReFills. The product description on its shop page says its contains over 6300 samples. Creating this library legitimately, even with all its inexplicable faults, would be an expensive production. It currently sells for 49 dollars, and it's not even on sale. Comparing its price with any legitimate offering is telling. There is no way to recoup costs producing a library like this and selling it so cheaply to such a small audience.

There is an endless list of things that don't add up about Euphonic Strings.
wow as well, you could work as a private investigator for this kind of thing
you surely out some effort into finding all this out
if only someone could figure out what library it supposedly was ripped from
but there probably long gone now and still making cash out of their refill from props site

User avatar
bxbrkrz
Posts: 1367
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 28 Jun 2019

The problem is, just like with any scientific demonstration, you'll need, at least, at least two separate 'labs' to confirm the experiment/test. The video alone wasn't enough regarding the other case of that fraudster. It was the video + the great detective work of someone whose trust level is 100% golden here in the forum. Not only that PH listens to him and trusts him too 100%. That's in itself is almost like a third lab for verification.

IMHO.

User avatar
esselfortium
Posts: 1270
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 28 Jun 2019

It's hard to say for sure where they sourced their samples from, in part because it's been six years since Euphonic Strings was first released, and the strings libraries sold nowaways are largely not the same as those that were popular in the early 2010s. The issues with sample endings and inconsistent recording quality hint towards it being potentially assembled together from multiple different sources. The layering of solo violin samples to form the four-violins patches, though, is a good clue that some or all of Euphonic's samples were lifted from solo instrument libraries rather than ensemble libraries.

I feel completely confident in saying that Euphonic Strings is a shoddily-assembled rip job. I don't think there are any other truly plausible explanations for some of its idiosyncrasies.

User avatar
MarkTarlton
Posts: 532
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: Santa Rosa, CA

Post 28 Jun 2019

what I find interesting is that when it came out there was a ton of praise for the strings refill from some top contributors....now all that has changed, but if you go back, and do a search you will be surprised to find some of the big posters on here giving it a lot of love.

User avatar
bxbrkrz
Posts: 1367
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 28 Jun 2019

We have the conclusion from one 'lab' and their methodology.
We need one or two more to go for definite proofs.
Since it was popular among top contributors, it should not be too difficult to do.

User avatar
Magnus
Posts: 139
Joined: 03 Jul 2018

Post 28 Jun 2019

esselfortium wrote: ↑
28 Jun 2019
It's hard to say for sure where they sourced their samples from, in part because it's been six years since Euphonic Strings was first released, and the strings libraries sold nowaways are largely not the same as those that were popular in the early 2010s. The issues with sample endings and inconsistent recording quality hint towards it being potentially assembled together from multiple different sources. The layering of solo violin samples to form the four-violins patches, though, is a good clue that some or all of Euphonic's samples were lifted from solo instrument libraries rather than ensemble libraries.

I feel completely confident in saying that Euphonic Strings is a shoddily-assembled rip job. I don't think there are any other truly plausible explanations for some of its idiosyncrasies.
It's interesting but just the other day I started off with Zampled in a track and decided it just didn't sound good enough and swapped its part out for a string patch from Pink Noise's Essence which sounded miles better both soloed and in the context of the mix.

User avatar
JiggeryPokery
Posts: 1074
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 28 Jun 2019

bxbrkrz wrote: ↑
28 Jun 2019
We have the conclusion from one 'lab' and their methodology.
We need one or two more to go for definite proofs.
Since it was popular among top contributors, it should not be too difficult to do.

So, having watched the video above, you can clearly see from it they're ripped samples: because no-one would sample a stretched sample note by note like that, unless they were doing this for the first time (which puts a big fucking dent in their "professional" claims), and then the only way that happens is by setting their auto-ripper on autopilot to sample every note while they go off to rip pictures off Google. This is isn't brain surgery. The main image is easily reverse-searchable, it's hhttps://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/photo/viol ... /153502862. The "team" photos look to be stock too. You'd think, given they are supposed to have run a studio, they could have at least taken one photo of their top class recording session :D.

(Disclosure: I bought Euphonics from the Propshop too. I used it, I didn't hate it at the time, but yeah, I don't believe for one second it's kosher)

User avatar
bxbrkrz
Posts: 1367
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 28 Jun 2019

JiggeryPokery wrote: ↑
28 Jun 2019
bxbrkrz wrote: ↑
28 Jun 2019
We have the conclusion from one 'lab' and their methodology.
We need one or two more to go for definite proofs.
Since it was popular among top contributors, it should not be too difficult to do.

So, having watched the video above, you can clearly see from it they're ripped samples: because no-one would sample a stretched sample note by note like that, unless they were doing this for the first time (which puts a big fucking dent in their "professional" claims), and then the only way that happens is by setting their auto-ripper on autopilot to sample every note while they go off to rip pictures off Google. This is isn't brain surgery. The main image is easily reverse-searchable, it's hhttps://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/photo/viol ... /153502862. The "team" photos look to be stock too. You'd think, given they are supposed to have run a studio, they could have at least taken one photo of their top class recording session :D.

(Disclosure: I bought Euphonics from the Propshop too. I used it, I didn't hate it at the time, but yeah, I don't believe for one second it's kosher)
We have now 2 people confirming this to be a fraud then.
The bigger picture is this: one fraud could be an anomaly. But two? It could be worse than we think :( :puf_unhappy: :( :puf_unhappy:
Thanks for the feedback.

User avatar
diminished
Posts: 1631
Joined: 15 Dec 2018

Post 28 Jun 2019

I don't even dare to ask where some Romplers got their samples from.
:reason: Most recent track: The Test (feat. MrFigg) || Others: on my YouTube channel β€’α΄—β€’

User avatar
moneykube
Posts: 2179
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 28 Jun 2019

diminished wrote: ↑
28 Jun 2019
I don't even dare to ask where some Romplers got their samples from.
Screen Shot 2019-06-28 at 5.15.11 PM.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Magnus
Posts: 139
Joined: 03 Jul 2018

Post 30 Jun 2019

JiggeryPokery wrote: ↑
28 Jun 2019
bxbrkrz wrote: ↑
28 Jun 2019
We have the conclusion from one 'lab' and their methodology.
We need one or two more to go for definite proofs.
Since it was popular among top contributors, it should not be too difficult to do.

So, having watched the video above, you can clearly see from it they're ripped samples: because no-one would sample a stretched sample note by note like that, unless they were doing this for the first time (which puts a big fucking dent in their "professional" claims), and then the only way that happens is by setting their auto-ripper on autopilot to sample every note while they go off to rip pictures off Google. This is isn't brain surgery. The main image is easily reverse-searchable, it's https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/ph ... /153502862. The "team" photos look to be stock too. You'd think, given they are supposed to have run a studio, they could have at least taken one photo of their top class recording session :D.

(Disclosure: I bought Euphonics from the Propshop too. I used it, I didn't hate it at the time, but yeah, I don't believe for one second it's kosher)
Shouldn't someone inform Propellerhead so they can look into it? Out of interest, did the Props offer refunds to people who purchased Softphonics instruments through their shop when all that kicked off and all that content was taken down?

sleep1979

Post 30 Jun 2019

Magnus wrote: ↑
30 Jun 2019
JiggeryPokery wrote: ↑
28 Jun 2019



So, having watched the video above, you can clearly see from it they're ripped samples: because no-one would sample a stretched sample note by note like that, unless they were doing this for the first time (which puts a big fucking dent in their "professional" claims), and then the only way that happens is by setting their auto-ripper on autopilot to sample every note while they go off to rip pictures off Google. This is isn't brain surgery. The main image is easily reverse-searchable, it's https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/ph ... /153502862. The "team" photos look to be stock too. You'd think, given they are supposed to have run a studio, they could have at least taken one photo of their top class recording session :D.

(Disclosure: I bought Euphonics from the Propshop too. I used it, I didn't hate it at the time, but yeah, I don't believe for one second it's kosher)
Shouldn't someone inform Propellerhead so they can look into it? Out of interest, did the Props offer refunds to people who purchased Softphonics instruments through their shop when all that kicked off and all that content was taken down?
I bet they never

sleep1979

Post 30 Jun 2019

diminished wrote: ↑
28 Jun 2019
I don't even dare to ask where some Romplers got their samples from.
Elaborate?

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests