yes, but there may be nuances to do with sample start points & output processing (etc.) that could account for subtle differences.
Well, of course it depends how you edit your samples - but we have
way better tools today than they did twenty years ago to do this. And you'll be sampling including the convertors, so the cheaper convertor sound will be baked into the samples anyway, so...
(This is more an issue with virtual recreations that aren't just resampled from the original. Take for example the Korg Legacy Wavestation software versus a real Wavestation. The software is essentially the same code and sample data, and yet it sounds "better" than the real thing, largely because of the better output convertors these days. The software is brighter, more accurate, more open. The real one is slightly warmer, blurry/defocused, and sonically less good, because of the cheaper convertors used - however, it is a character I'm very familiar with, and actually prefer in many ways.)
well, now. This is the interesting bit… of course it depends (about 95% IMHO) on how you use them.
Any sound can be a useful one, of course. But I always hated the U20. Even back then.
hose 'bland' module sounds had to be pretty well-designed in the first place for the modules to sell in any quantity, & that efficient engineering does come through. It comes down to usability versus quality.
Sure. I've used plenty of crap synths over the years - you can usually bend them to be interesting.
I don't mean "bland" as a generic term for a rompler. I have a Roland XV-5080 that I love. It has a great sounding engine, and is decently programmed, and no software can do exactly what it does (and with 128 voices polyphony). It's a good module, even though, like all these modules, the samples are tiny and heavily compressed.
But the U20 (and everything from that family, from the U-110 upwards) are very boring engines that are wholly sampled based and not that flexible. The JV-1080 up was the first next-generation family with a redeveloped rompler engine that was much better. Everytime I flicked through sounds on the U20 it was about as inspiring as watching Eastenders... ( ! )
Those 'bland' module sounds had to be pretty well-designed in the first place for the modules to sell in any quantity
Not really - back then, you didn't have much choice - if you wanted new sounds, you had to buy a new module, unless you were super rich and had a sampler that could do more than replay dog barks and fart noises!
Some technology ages well - hyper old stuff with character can be interesting and great (eg, Fairlight Series II's or Mirages, or Polymoog's etc), and modern stuff with power, features, flexibility and a great sound is also great. But for that middle period - the low-rent ROM sample players like the Proteus's and U20s of the world - can largely be forgotten about happily - at least in my head... 😉
That's why I still use the 12-bit 0.8S S612 samples you so kindly edited, & that's why people are still downloading even really early drum module samples… they couldn't afford to be quality, so they had to just be good!
Sure - those things have character. The U20 simply has no character - it's just a box of boring, small static samples with limited editing possibilities. No thanks! (Imo of course 😉 )
Sorry, you got me on the U20 rant... hehe
