Mimic: New Creative Sampler

[EnochLight]

Sound Designer II could, in 1989. It was among the first direct-to-disk recorders/editors, and was used a lot in professional recording and mastering studios.

Just a year later the same company introduced their multitrack system, Pro Tools.

1991 for PT - I got the first one in Nashville, IIRC…
I did a shit-ton of work back then with my AD/IN and DATio in Sound Designer. Loads of folks were mixing to DAT, but no one could edit them.

Hard disc storage space in 1989 was incredibly expensive - like outrageously expensive. What did Sound Designer II record to? Were these editing audio at 44.1 Khz 16 bit WAV? Just curious - I honestly couldn't afford anything near this in 1989.

1syzvwdnm5351.jpg (85.62 KiB) Viewed 3325 times

[AnotherMathias]

Sound Designer II could, in 1989. It was among the first direct-to-disk recorders/editors, and was used a lot in professional recording and mastering studios.

Just a year later the same company introduced their multitrack system, Pro Tools.

1991 for PT - I got the first one in Nashville, IIRC…
I did a shit-ton of work back then with my AD/IN and DATio in Sound Designer. Loads of folks were mixing to DAT, but no one could edit them.

Hard disc storage space in 1989 was incredibly expensive - like outrageously expensive. What did Sound Designer II record to? Were these editing audio at 44.1 Khz 16 bit WAV? Just curious - I honestly couldn't afford anything near this in 1989.



1syzvwdnm5351.jpg

Hmm, I don't think that ad is from 1989 (or perhaps real)...
I found a website that lists hard drive prices, as advertised in magazines. In 1989 a 60MB Seagate cost $449, and in 1990 a 660MB (just enough to edit together a CD) Micropolis drive cost $2695. Still not cheap, especially since the dollar in 1990 was worth twice as much!

Yep, mostly 44.1 kHz at 16 bit, I think. Sound Designer 2 had its own file format, SD2. I think ProTools used that one as well. WAV was a PC thing, this was initially all done on Macs.

(this must be deadly boring for most of the people who want to talk about Mimic...)

[EnochLight]

and in 1990 a 660MB (just enough to edit together a CD) Micropolis drive cost $2695. Still not cheap, especially since the dollar in 1990 was worth twice as much!

Right. I suppose - just like the Fairlight (Series I-III) - this sort of tech was far outside of the bedroom/home musician/producer's reach, and the realm of professional studios only. $2695 USD just for a data drive that barely could fit an actual CD's worth of tracks on it is just insane!

Yep, mostly 44.1 kHz at 16 bit, I think. Sound Designer 2 had its own file format, SD2. I think ProTools used that one as well. WAV was a PC thing, this was initially all done on Macs.

Right, I was using WAV as a base. 44.1 Khz 16-bit files took up a metric shit ton of room, either way you slice it. Not sure if the SD2 format was just their own lossy format or just a container.

(this must be deadly boring for most of the people who want to talk about Mimic...)

Hahahah - true, true.

[EdGrip]

I think the very old Akai granular timestretching is so iconic a sound that it should be a standard feature of all soft sampler devices.

It increasingly sounds like the "big proper library sampler" everyone keeps pining for might be the new combinator...

[PhillipOrdonez]

I find it interesting ‍♂️

[EnochLight]

I think the very old Akai granular timestretching is so iconic a sound that it should be a standard feature of all soft sampler devices.

It increasingly sounds like the "big proper library sampler" everyone keeps pining for might be the new combinator...

Agreed. Funny enough, we can't even get (today's) Akai to get them to include this sort of timestretching on their current MPC and Force, which is just mind boggling IMHO.

[jlgrimes]

Halion 6, yes, I did the 30 day demo. I almost gave up immediately, after all the hoops Steinberg made me jump through to even get started!
It's impressive, but way to big and cumbersome to be much fun. It's the victim of a massive feature bloat, and I really don't care for all the scrolling up and down to get to all the parameters. Kontakt and Logic Sampler have the same problem, as does Falcon.

I see where you're coming from.

NNXT and NN19 did a great job of offering a 90s sampler experience with 21st century CPU might.

It's advanced and not too complex to have fun with, but lacks a few small features that could bring it to the next level.

What I'd really like to see is something more like an xv-5080 where you can construct more complex tones, but it's still feels as simple as a more basic sampler (along with the stretch modes found in mimic).

Bonus points for allowing purely synthetic tones.

As for mimic, I think it still has a lot to offer for instruments when layered, but it would be nice to have an clean and built in easy to manage things like legato and reversing.

Grain breathed new life into my library of instrument sounds, and mimic could do the same thing for you.

But the RE SDK is open to all, as is the VST API for a more tailored solution.

The old NNXT should easily surpass the capabilities of an XV5080. Definitely once you start using Combinators.

That said the NNXT could still use better filters and a system to automate more parameters (maybe even include the Subtractor waveforms as a bonus). I'd be definitely open for a NNXT revamp.

[jlgrimes]

Sound Designer II could, in 1989. It was among the first direct-to-disk recorders/editors, and was used a lot in professional recording and mastering studios.

Just a year later the same company introduced their multitrack system, Pro Tools.

1991 for PT - I got the first one in Nashville, IIRC…
I did a shit-ton of work back then with my AD/IN and DATio in Sound Designer. Loads of folks were mixing to DAT, but no one could edit them.

Hard disc storage space in 1989 was incredibly expensive - like outrageously expensive. What did Sound Designer II record to? Were these editing audio at 44.1 Khz 16 bit WAV? Just curious - I honestly couldn't afford anything near this in 1989.



1syzvwdnm5351.jpg

I remember our Commodore 64 didn't even have a hard drive in like 1984. I think the 64 meant 64k of Ram. But wow it is amazing seeing how far computers have went. My first PC in 1995 already had 8 MB of Ram which is almost the 10MB hard drive in 1989.

[AnotherMathias]

I remember our Commodore 64 didn't even have a hard drive in like 1984. I think the 64 meant 64k of Ram. But wow it is amazing seeing how far computers have went. My first PC in 1995 already had 8 MB of Ram which is almost the 10MB hard drive in 1989.

My friends C64s didn’t even have floppy drives, just cassette storage. I had a Sinclair ZX Spectrum, and that didn’t even have a dedicated cassette drive, just an old tabletop cassette radio.

I did, however, have a sampler attachment for it! It had a massive 21k of sample memory. 8-bit, of course, but it actually had MIDI. A rare little box, presumably a favorite of Aphex Twin.

[avasopht]

The old NNXT should easily surpass the capabilities of an XV5080. Definitely once you start using Combinators.

That said the NNXT could still use better filters and a system to automate more parameters (maybe even include the Subtractor waveforms as a bonus). I'd be definitely open for a NNXT revamp.

They are very different beasts, but when you remove the part, polyphony and memory limits of the XV-5080 I'm still not sure the NNXT even comes close other than the NNXT allowing much more layers.

NNXT just has a much more concise design. It's well organized with all features available on a single screen, and it's easy to use. Alt mode might be the only feature unique to the NNXT.

Would be interesting to do a more thorough comparison, but I'm pretty sure the XV-5080 comes up on top feature-wise when the 5080's limits are taken out of the equation.

[AnotherMathias]

They are very different beasts, but when you remove the part, polyphony and memory limits of the XV-5080 I'm still not sure the NNXT even comes close other than the NNXT allowing much more layers.

NNXT just has a much more concise design. It's well organized with all features available on a single screen, and it's easy to use. Alt mode might be the only feature unique to the NNXT.

Would be interesting to do a more thorough comparison, but I'm pretty sure the XV-5080 comes up on top feature-wise when the 5080's limits are taken out of the equation.

Alright, I'll bite.
What can the XV-5080 do (in terms of sample playback, not rompler stuff) that NN-XT can't?

I've never actually used one, but what comes to mind is that you have the classic Roland "structure", where you can take oscillators (or sample playback) 1+2 and 3+4 and route them in pairs through a ring modulator, and do two filters in series.

Anything else?

About NN-XT, I do agree that the single-screen interface is a BIG plus. Tabbed or scrolling interfaces get very tedious and unspontaneous to use, hopefully any future NN-XT can retain a (mostly) single-screen interface.

[bitley]

An advantage of the Integra / 5080 / 3080 / 1080 / Proteus 2000 etc etc is that they came with all the waveforms readily available upon startup. Computers are getting more and more powerful so it would be interesting to see something like this in the future but it would also be kind of impractical since the program would need so much more RAM. It would be a different machine than a sampler, more of an ideally multitimbral bread and butter kind of module. There's nothing wrong with having one or two of these rack synths side by side with Reason of course.

[avasopht]

Alright, I'll bite.
What can the XV-5080 do (in terms of sample playback, not rompler stuff) that NN-XT can't?

I've never actually used one, but what comes to mind is that you have the classic Roland "structure", where you can take oscillators (or sample playback) 1+2 and 3+4 and route them in pairs through a ring modulator, and do two filters in series.

Anything else?

About NN-XT, I do agree that the single-screen interface is a BIG plus. Tabbed or scrolling interfaces get very tedious and unspontaneous to use, hopefully any future NN-XT can retain a (mostly) single-screen interface.

1. Velocity and key fade zones (this is huge as it allows for much more seamless patches)
2. Random pitch (on a per-note basis the pitch can be slightly off)
3. A modulation matrix
4. Individual (and more complex) envelope for pitch, filter and amp
5. Wide range of built-in effects (including sympathetic resonance)
- a. Including things like guitar amp simulations, lo-fi and compression
6. Much more advanced LFOs
- a. Includes a step modulation where you can input a 16 step modulation sequence
- b. Allows offset, so that your LFO can oscillate between -1 and 0, or 0 and 1 if you want!
- c. Much more LFO waveforms
- d. Graphic display of oscillator waveform (including the effect of your LFO envelope)

The NNXT is an excellent sampler and has the advantage of being able to load much more samples. But if I had to choose between the two, I'd go for an XV-5080 (except the plugin doesn't allow user loaded samples).

[AnotherMathias]

1. Velocity and key fade zones (this is huge as it allows for much more seamless patches)
2. Random pitch (on a per-note basis the pitch can be slightly off)
3. A modulation matrix
4. Individual (and more complex) envelope for pitch, filter and amp
5. Wide range of built-in effects (including sympathetic resonance)
- a. Including things like guitar amp simulations, lo-fi and compression
6. Much more advanced LFOs
- a. Includes a step modulation where you can input a 16 step modulation sequence
- b. Allows offset, so that your LFO can oscillate between -1 and 0, or 0 and 1 if you want!
- c. Much more LFO waveforms
- d. Graphic display of oscillator waveform (including the effect of your LFO envelope)

The NNXT is an excellent sampler and has the advantage of being able to load much more samples. But if I had to choose between the two, I'd go for an XV-5080 (except the plugin doesn't allow user loaded samples).

Good points all!

1. NN-XT can do crossfades between velocity zones, but not keyboard tracking zones. Agreed, I miss that sometimes.
2. Aha, you actually CAN! Fun trick: At the cost of an LFO - set LFO 1 to the slowest rate (.03 Hz), free running, S&H waveform and then you can modulate pitch, filter, and amp, with new random values every note. Just don't play REALLY long notes, eventually the S&H wave will hop to a new value. And also, you can use the delay knob to glide into the random value at the attack!
3. NN-XT Mk2 should probably have a modulation matrix, but man, I'm glad I don't HAVE to use one. I find them tedious and dull.
4. True, we don't get a dedicated pitch envelope, but it's pretty rare that we need one, and usually I'm fine having the Mod Envelope do double duty. However, for a simple envelope sweep on the attack (for pitch, filter, and amp), you can again use my fun trick from #2, but this time set the LFO shape to square, and use the delay knob for the sweep speed.
5. For effects, we of course have the entire rack at our disposal! That said, I WOULD like some effects built into a NN-XT Mk2 for the times you want to dress a sound up a little for sharing without having to make a combinator. I'd be happy if they just ported the effects block from Algoritm.
6.
a. I probably wouldn't this much myself, but a Mk2 should have it. Again, the curve from Algoritm would be good. Of course your argument is what NN-XT can do NOW, not some future fantasy version. I guess we can patch up a step sequencer for monophonic stuff.
b. Yep, I'd like that. To be able to set an LFO to positive only is very useful, if nothing else for pitch trills.
c. More LFO waveforms would be nice. Most devices since have had a bigger selection, which again demonstrates that while it is awesome, it's showing its age.
d. Well, I guess in theory we DO have a graphic representation of the LFO waveforms, in the form of tiny pictures next to the buttons...

[EnochLight]

1. Velocity and key fade zones (this is huge as it allows for much more seamless patches)
2. Random pitch (on a per-note basis the pitch can be slightly off)
3. A modulation matrix
4. Individual (and more complex) envelope for pitch, filter and amp
5. Wide range of built-in effects (including sympathetic resonance)
- a. Including things like guitar amp simulations, lo-fi and compression
6. Much more advanced LFOs
- a. Includes a step modulation where you can input a 16 step modulation sequence
- b. Allows offset, so that your LFO can oscillate between -1 and 0, or 0 and 1 if you want!
- c. Much more LFO waveforms
- d. Graphic display of oscillator waveform (including the effect of your LFO envelope)

The NNXT is an excellent sampler and has the advantage of being able to load much more samples. But if I had to choose between the two, I'd go for an XV-5080 (except the plugin doesn't allow user loaded samples).

Is it possible to just contain multiple NNXT and/or Mimic in a Combinator, along with its stock devices/effects and have many of these features inside a Combi? I mean the Combinators modulation matrix should easily be able to keep up, I would hope? Slap in some Pulsars, etc...

[raymondh]

Sound Designer II could, in 1989. It was among the first direct-to-disk recorders/editors, and was used a lot in professional recording and mastering studios.

Just a year later the same company introduced their multitrack system, Pro Tools.

1991 for PT - I got the first one in Nashville, IIRC…
I did a shit-ton of work back then with my AD/IN and DATio in Sound Designer. Loads of folks were mixing to DAT, but no one could edit them.

Hard disc storage space in 1989 was incredibly expensive - like outrageously expensive. What did Sound Designer II record to? Were these editing audio at 44.1 Khz 16 bit WAV? Just curious - I honestly couldn't afford anything near this in 1989.



1syzvwdnm5351.jpg

The first IBM-XT I programmed on had a 10 MB hard disk like this. It was amazing, the shackles were off and I didn't know what to do with all that space, many times more than the storage on our C64 and Amiga

[avasopht]

Is it possible to just contain multiple NNXT and/or Mimic in a Combinator, along with its stock devices/effects and have many of these features inside a Combi? I mean the Combinators modulation matrix should easily be able to keep up, I would hope? Slap in some Pulsars, etc...

Not if you want a multitimbral sound.

Fade zones are theoretically possible on a per voice basis.

[Heigen5]

mimic_semi.jpg (832.03 KiB) Viewed 4057 times

Seriously, we need to be able to switch between the different semi values per slice. The thing is, we can automate the semi knob and it already works,
but automating the semi knob could be turned into a feature, so every slice would need to get a semi-value box for them.

[Sterioevo]

Like the Dr. Octorex?

[Heigen5]

Like the Dr. Octorex?

Yeah! Three important things that were left out are:

1) Auto BPM matching when changing the songtempo in the slicemode.
2) Not able to change the keys per slice in the slice-mode.
3) Key-detecting (this one was added though already).

[aeox]

Aeox: That noise random modulation from Europa you mention, can it be sent out as CV from it or other instruments? If you can, you can already use it to modulate mimic.

Sorry I just want to clarify, I use the audio noise from europa and convert to cv with thor (or just use noise from thor)

There probably isn't a big enough difference for it to matter that much for general use though

[RoryM0]

I was just looking at Umpf Club Drums in the Rewards Store, I started to feel like that and Mimic have a lot of crossover, particularly using Mimic in multi slot mode. I don't have access to either device at the moment, does anyone else that has used them both make any comment on this?

[PhillipOrdonez]

I was just looking at Umpf Club Drums in the Rewards Store, I started to feel like that and Mimic have a lot of crossover, particularly using Mimic in multi slot mode. I don't have access to either device at the moment, does anyone else that has used them both make any comment on this?

They both playback samples, but one of them can turn said samples into something completely different and the other can't even come close. You can use both as drum machines though, one of them is a drum machine, the other isn't.


By the way this track here was made thanks to mimic:

[RoryM0]

They both playback samples, but one of them can turn said samples into something completely different and the other can't even come close. You can use both as drum machines though, one of them is a drum machine, the other isn't.

Fair one, I prob should have been a bit more specific. Just feels like mimic eats UCD's lunch a bit if you use mimic for 8 one shot drum samples with multi slot mode. Almost like you could 'mimic' UCD with Mimic pretty closely

[zoidkirb]

Is there a way to send the slice midi notes to a sequencer lane or is this feature planned?