Amiga Samplers (technical) - FutureSound / Master Sound / Stereo Master 

I'm still waiting for part 2b lol

Me too!!!

PCs were boring office machines in the 80s, who was gaming on them back then ?

LOL. False.

@@vapourmile ?

@@wishusknight3009 You're imagining things. Ever head of "information availability fallacy"? It's basically the argument from ignorance: You aren't aware of something therefore it doesn't exist. For the sake of example: The CompuSonics DSP-1000 was a professional studio grade PC compatible 16bit digital signal processor and sampler which allowed PC-Based processing and mastering of CD quality audio. It was literally used to improve the quality of CDs. It was also available to the professional market in 1984. It predated ALL the Amigas. You should really try looking harder, you obviously won't find something if you aren't looking for it.

@@vapourmile sorry mate, ha was talking about the PC that regular people were using at the time... by the way " the CompuSonics DSP-1000 was a VCR-sized desktop unit with stereo I/O, 16-bit converters and a claimed 20 to 20k Hz bandwidth. The format never took off, yet the unit laid the groundwork for other CompuSonics products in the fledgling DAW market - certainly well in its infancy in 1984."

Daniel Jones I just finished watching part 1. You said exactly what I wanted to say. 👍

Same for me.

Thanks! Will work on some new stuff soon.

This is why there's so much classic hip-hop and electronic music from that era. With the limitations came creativity. Nowadays people don't even have to try they just buy samples from cymatics, and loop them, done. Everyone's the same

Thanks Telecrate. Behind the entertainment value, there's a certain amount of documentation for histories sake going on too. :-)

Like a Nomad? lol that sentence needed more devotion.... normal it should say :)

@@vix_in_japan Haha - I knew what you meant! Also - thanks for your channel - it has some fantastic content on it. Especially some of the real-time streams while working on something. I've checked in now and again for the last year :-)

@@CTRIX64 Aww thanks man, glad you enjoy it, always stuns me when people whose creativity I enjoy so much pop in to watch a noodler like me :)

Sheevlord “Alright lads, we need to create a demo track to go with the software. Only catch is it needs to include a Run-D.M.C. sample and some seagulls.”

AH YEAH! lol

comes to show that the guys that put all the product together.. didn't really know that much about what they were doing.. at least from a musician point of view

Certainly sounds like a demo by coders doesn't it! Although to anyone who was non-musical, it would have still been an impressive demo of what it was capable of I guess!

I've had music teachers who would find all sorts of symbolism and deepness in that track, hahaha

Yeah - I uploaded it in advance and left it for a few days to let the gods check it. I released my old Amiga stuff creative commons but via an aggrigator and it copyright claims everything. I hate it and can't undo it. People wonder why I haven't released music in 6 years and that's why! I keep it to live shows these day :-) Buuuuutt... that might change

@@CTRIX64 Please make that change!

@@CTRIX64 I hear you...I've made a few tunes featuring samples from other people's work, but have not released them for that very reason! I tend to stick to non-descript, single samples for most of my work now

@@rorz999 LOL. The Amiga's sound chip is explained by the fact an 8bit DAC is one of the cheapest simplest possible circuits to build. my.eng.utah.edu/~bowen/DAC_Proj/8-bit_r2rdac_current_sources.html When the Amiga was released FM synthesis was still preferred in professional musical instruments because synthesizers are far more controllable. What was more ubiquitous in the 1980s, the Amiga or the FM Yamaha DX-7? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-WiYa4oUxKR8.html Amigas are not famous for being preferred in pro studios. They were the digital equivalent of the already outdated 1963 Mellotron. Except the Mellotron from 23 years before could easily voice more than 4 notes at a time. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-N07-YAKtRAw.html

@@vapourmile I see your point from a studio perspective.... but the Amiga was never a studio device nor marketed to that use-case ever. There was a huge divide between a computer and a studio in the 1980s. The most a studio computer did was control automation or play out simple MIDI data (by 1985) for which the Atari was marketed. Studio's contained $$$,$$$ of gear ... and even a basic sampler cost $$$$. The Amiga was $$$ (note the missing dollar digit!) and was a full computer with the bonus of 4 channel hardware sampler / re-player which could do some amazing things if you were careful and efficient with the sample source. Any studio owner would instantly hear it as 8bit and aliased. A note on the R2R DAC - which are indeed simple to build - was not what was in the Amiga. The Amiga did a bunch more than just contain a single DAC. Unlike the sample playback cards for other platforms which were essentially a R2R DAC (like the HippoSound for Atari or SoundBlaster on the PC). The Amiga effectively had 4 x 8 bit DACs + 64 volume levels per channel, and as @blargg mentions above - it did varied resampling in hardware meaning that the CPU usage was 0% on audio playback unless you were doing modulation. A single command could trigger a sound effect and it'd just play until you stopped it in code. Even the Sound Blaster on the PC right up until the modern day uses the CPU for audio playback. That's why many Amiga people bought Gravis Ultrasounds if they bought a PC. I remember my dads 486SX/25 couldn't even playback a MOD without sounding fuzzy (as the SoundBlaster was 8 bit rather than 4 x 8bit). Consider the Amiga had an 8mhz CPU back in the old days... to output to a simple R2R DAC would have been impossible if you wanted to do anything (like gameplay) at the same time. Studio samplers had dedicated processors worth many more times the price of an Amiga and built for the task. To answer your question on the DX - yes it would have been more common to find a DX7 in a studio. But I'd argue in the 1980's the Fairlight / E-mu Emulator and a ton of other digital samplers (often triggering drums and other effects) were just as common as the DX7. The Amiga is essentially a poor-persons Fairlight / Emulator. I do love the DX7 though. Mines currently broken but I'll possibly film a repair video - mostly because when a DX7 goes wrong it makes some of the wildest sounds you will ever hear!

​@@CTRIX64That was unfortunately not very informative. Like so many others you seem to have assumed I don't know what I'm talking about. No, I'm a computing professional, and a programmer of the era when the Amiga was popular. So I can and have written programs for the Commodore Amiga, PC and Commodore 64 in the Amiga's day in Assembler. Including sample players, copper lists, etc. A professional sampler only had one job: To make a single 16bit 44Khz digital recording of a sound. After that it was then processed by hardware which could play polyphonic sound, if needs be. Although in a professional setting, even to this day, samples are usually merely filtered then used as they are. Basslines, drum rhythms, etc. The Amiga isn't really like a Fairlight. The Fairlight was not as simple as you claim. It provided sound shaping through frequency analyses which are complex even by the standards of today. The Fairlight used synthesising technology based on an FFT algorithm, there is nothing equivalent on an Amiga. Also, contrary to your claim, the sound chip on the Amiga didn't resample anything. Samples can be played back at different speeds and that is all, so it is rather as simple as I said. You simply set a volume control, point it at a region of memory, set the playback speed, then trigger playback. There have been attempts to improve on this using real-time software algorithms but an unassisted 68000 doesn't do very well when it comes to shaping sounds coming at it at a maximum of 4x22Khz. The 68000 isn't going to have an easy time modifying samples at a rate of 2 8 bit samples per raster then passing them to chip RAM. It just doesn't have the power. You can get things like 8-voice players, but what's the point? Even a cheap PC consumer sound card like the AdLib has a synthesizer chip with 9 voices onboard hardware processing and 16-bit waveform output. The AdLib is not an exotic device, it's the lowest end ever of the PC audio market. In short though, yes studio equipment was more expensive. Amiga fans ALWAYS shout "COST!", but it isn't a valid argument. YOU may have had a tight budget but not everybody shares your own budgetary constraints. Mercedes are more expensive than Volkswagen Polos, private planes are more expensive than cars. . It doesn't matter. You don't dictate terms on what other people can afford to own. You can't invalidate something based on an assertion YOU can't afford it. Who cares if it's beyond your price range? Of course studio equipment is more expensive, it's better. It's more capable more sophisticated equipment with far more stable and quiet signal generators. When people love Amigas they cling to anything the Amiga has done and tout it as extraordinary, purely because it's an Amiga doing it. What about more generally,?If you aren't emotionally tied to the Amiga? What do people remember in music? The Amiga? Or the Prophet 5, the Roland 303 and 808, the DX-7, the Fairlight, the Clavichord, Moog and Oberheim. Even in its forte, which was computer games, people remember Sega and Nintendo, Mario and Sonic. Amiga fans grossly overestimate the Amiga and grossly underestimate everything else. Always trying to claim that anything more expensive doesn't count. No, if you can afford it then its utility is NOT invalidated by its cost. Why do DGX-2 workstations, TODAY cost £350,000? Why did the Summit supercomputer cost £325,000,000? Devices are NOT invalidated by the fact you can't afford them, and the fact they are often often more expensive does NOT imply the purchasers of them would be better of with Amigas. Nobody did weather research on a Commodore Amiga. The Amiga is a cheap consumer toy.

@@vapourmile "The Amiga is a cheap consumer toy." So many words and your conclusion is to tell us what we already know? News flash: Everyone knows that the Amiga is a cheap consumer toy. This is what it was marketed as (at least the 500). But you compare apples to oranges. The Amiga was not studio equipment nor was it ever marketed as studio equipment. You compare things that wheren't build for private use to a home computer (emphasis lies on "home") that was build to do many things. That doesn't make any sense. If you want to do a comparison that isn't "private planes vs cars" (what the heck?) you'd need to compare it to something that is in the same field, like PCs or Macs. But you completly miss the point with about every single one of your sentences. Except the one I quoted and which is common knowledge.

​@@wohlhabendermanager "If you want to do a comparison that isn't "private planes vs cars" (what the heck?) you'd need to compare it to something that is in the same field, like PCs or Macs" LOL. No I don't.... the no true Scotsman fallacy in disguise, again. Yeah.... "If you want to compare the Amiga to anything else the only things you're allowed to compare it to are things like the Amiga, you know, like the Amiga". You can rule out ANYTHING ELSE as "not the same thing as an Amiga" comparison because obviously the only thing truly "the same thing" as a Commodore Amiga is the same Commodore Amiga. Your argument is "The only way to make a fair assessment it to preemptively discount from consideration that isn't a commodore Amiga". No, sorry, that's bullshit. I can venture exactly the same in return: If I want a Cray supercomputer then I don't have to compare it to anything except Cray supercomputers. Microcomputers need not apply. There is literally nothing about an Amiga that means you MUST consider it and reject other things. Having considered it, if you want SOMETHING ELSE, example: Something more powerful than an Amiga, then it's very easily ruled out. When I set up a CGI department in the late 1980s we have £21 million to spend. Know how many Amigas we used? None. You probably can feasibly make an album entirely on Garage Band on an iPhone, but there's no fucking point and it's stupid to imply when making a choice you Must select from tools a bit like Garage Band, because it obviously isn't true and that fact explains why people don't: They can get something more suitable instead. The idea the only things you can take into consideration when making a purchase are things matching the exact description of a Commodore Amiga is fucking stupid. What if you *don't* want an Amiga because it *Doesn't* fit your specification? "The only things you're allowed to choose from are those things which fit the description of the Amiga" is clearly stupid and wrong. When people go out to buy a Bugatti or Lamborghini they *can* weight it up against a Ford Fiesta if they want to but it's fucking stupid to suggest that, having done so, they are then forced to make a selection from something in the same price bracket as a Fiesta. They don't. That's my point. Nobody who wants to own a helicopter *must* choose a scooter instead. "You're can make a free choice, only your choice has to fit the size and shape of scooter because that's what I had!". No, that has never been true.

Awesome! Let me know if you do make one. Yeah - Fasttracker was and is still amazing. The 4 channel life does make it extra special though :-) The limitations are wild. Also - you can do your sampling on a modern PC and it'll still sound like an Amiga once the samples are shipped over. I might do a video on how I pre-prep samples on the PC side.

​@@CTRIX64 Sampling on PC(+Mac?) and shipping over would be interesting. I always end up resampling stuff through the amiga and back into ableton when I want that amiga-ey sound. Definitely also gonna build a sampler based on the next video, too, as I had one of those cheap ones and it's recently died!

Hahahaha.... love it. I totally just visted your web page too. It's on point. That secret page on the SNES launch is magic! Next video is kinda looking semi technical too... but more a look at software.