Samples of hardware - Cheap - UPDATE - Decent!

I recently had to recreate an old tune that used a number of Roland D-50 sounds. I found that VST Store on eBay that sells the samples and figured…it’s so cheap (around $6) what hell and ordered a download. The complete D-50 factory preset samples were sent as Kontakt-ready.

Obviously, I wasn’t expecting the editablity of what a D-50 was capable of, but Kontakt loaded it all just fine and I was surprised how decent sounding and usable the presets were for what I needed. Having been a former D-50 owner, it was kinda nice to go down memory lane going through the presets, which can be manipulated a bit as fixed samples within Kontakt. Was it worth 6 bucks? Sure.

Links please. I own a D-50, XP-50 and would love access to the other synths of yesteryear especially if the prices are cheap.

Edit: nevermind. Google “vst store ebay” to find it.

Sorry, what I got wasn’t $6. It was $19.95. I was looking at the wrong page. This is the original link I used:

Not all of the Kontakt patches were properly looped. but it only took a few minutes to fix that in Kontakt and resave the presets. So there is a bit of a caveat with purchasing this stuff. But still, for $19, the recordings were quite decent.

^^^ Only Kontakt?

What, no HALion sample sets?


What, no HALion sample sets?

Not a deal-breaker. The .NKI program files can be read and loaded into HALion 4.5.

Excellent! I recently upgraded from HAL v3 to 4.5, and I didn’t know it spoke “.NKI”.

Thanks for the information. :slight_smile:

Which by the way weasel, when you talk about fixing the loop, what & how did you do to it?

I’m talking specifically about the Roland D-50 soundset…which is the only one I bought. I can’t speak for the quality of other sets.

Many of the D-50 “factory preset” sounds were meant to be played with sustain (pads and such). This soundset has many of the samples looped properly to do so…but a number of 'em were not looped. So if you hold a chord…eventually, all the notes will die away…much like playing a Melotron.

Almost all of the sound sets consist of about a dozen samples spread across the keyboard, so going into Kontakt’s (or HALion’s) sample editor to set a dozen sustain loops with crossfading to work perfectly (or reasonably) well, is not a major deal…if you know what you’re doing.

BTW…it occurred to me that the guy who is making these things probably used Redmatica’s Autosampler software. That may be something some of you may want to investigate.

Caveat Emptor.

Usually Roland are all over this…

Sampling their synths does breach copyright, and they do have lawyers sending cease and desist notices.

Basically, they paid someone to create their presets (I know a guy who has programmed stuff for all of the big 3) and they have copyright of those sounds.

Whether you agree with that or not, is moot, and whether you take any regard of it, is of course up to you.

Just thought I’d chime in with the info, as I only came across it myself, where it came up on another forum.

Sampling their synths does breach copyright, and they do have lawyers sending cease and desist notices.

I find this somewhat interesting (and amusing) because it brings up the question: Where do you draw the line?

Let’s assume we skip the “buy the presets on eBay” step and directly sample a Roland hardware synth via Redmatica.

OK…so now you play the samples inside of Kontakt or Halion (or whatever) as part of a Project, mix it, publish it and make money.

In context, you’ve used their sounds and published your song for profit. Does anyone expect Roland to come after you for that? Is the line drawn at publishing a song that contains music created using one of their synths? Or is the line drawn at recording one of their synths, adding a sampler program preset file and selling it for profit?

Not to be too nitpicky….but there isn’t really much of a difference between the two publications, both physically and regarding intent: publication of sound for profit. And where is line drawn on performance? Does it start at the point where the programmer created the sound or where it was used in a secondary performance using the keyboard as a musical instrument? Once they include those sounds on a commercial musical instrument for sale, they lose the right to performance rights.

It’s not as though you’d be encroaching sales of a D-50 these days. If Roland does indeed go after these guys, I can only imaging asking their legal department: “What’s the matter boys….slow day?”

Just thinking out loud on the Internet.

I wondered the same thing Weasel.

I was going to post something similar to Weasel but decided the copywrite stuff is a waste of typing. The rules don’t make any logical sense because corporate lawyers wrote the rules approved by politicians and enforced by a legal system that is still using stenographers. I’m on the side that can’t figure out why software doesn’t fall under the “math/algo” category and therefore is not copywriteable.

Trying to copywrite the sounds that a device makes, which is sold with the sole intent to make sounds, is baffling to me.

I don’t see how any of this is confusing at all. Roland pays a sound developer to program sounds for a synth, say the D50. Its a work for hire so Roland owns the sounds. If you buy the synth and use the sounds in a composition thats within your rights as the owner of the synth. If you sample the sounds and use them in Kontakt to make a song that still within your rights. Its only when you try to sell the sounds in their pure preset form do you infringe on Rolands copyrights.If you buy the sample sets from a party that doesn’t own the right to sell (like a guy on Ebay) thats basically the same as buying cracked software. The seller had no right to sell this. Unlikely that Roland would go after end users of sample sets buy would have a cease and desist claim against the Ebay seller.

Most of the long standing synth manufactures (Emu comes to mind) sell their legacy synth sounds as sample sets and they don’t to lose sales to some guy on Ebay.

I could poke holes in this very easily. The logic behind your distinction is completely flawed. But we are already way off topic and it really doesn’t matter, the silly lawyers have had their say.

Please clarify as to where the flaw is? This is exactly on topic in a thread entitled “Samples of Hardware Synths - Cheap - To good to be true?”

Please clarify as to where the flaw is?

I’ll take a shot at this. Keep in mind, it’s an opinion.

As I’ve been using the D-50 as subject material, I’ll hover around that. The only thing Roland could conceivably go after is the use of registered trademarks. This would explain why many plug-in developers use pseudonyms for product description/simulations when they offer hardware simulations. The actual sounds can’t be copyrighted unless specifically mentioned in a EULA.

Open a D-50 manual and look for a EULA. Not there? Of course not. If there was a EULA specifying copyright protection for the sounds, no one in their right minds would use the instruments on their recordings, for fear of potential royalty litigation.

Can you imagine the legal morass that would develop if musical instrument manufacturers initiated litigation against every artist who used their instruments on their recordings, for copyright infringement? They can’t have it both ways when they produce a musical instrument for sale as far as sampling is concerned.

That said, Steve’s “wondering” point about why a manufacturer like Roland doesn’t pursue the potential revenue stream that would open up if they offered their legacy instruments sound sets for sale…either as sample libraries or actual plug-in offerings (like KORG does). I mean seriously…what would they stand to lose at this point for instruments that have been discontinued for 20 years or more?

Well said!

The problem for the companies like Yamaha and Roland is that the cost to develop and support the soft version is significantly more than the income they will ever get out of it. They can’t do what those Ebay guys do and just half ass a dump of the samples and then sell home burned DVDs with the contents written in Sharpie.

the sample dudes are happy making $10 per disk … Yamaha is not. the sample dudes don’t do support … Yamaha would have to. Even if they licensed, it would be to a company that would jack up the price in order to properly distribute and support the product. etc…

That’s because you = the Ebay dude. It isn’t just the profit margin. The number of units makes it worth the rippers time. It wouldn’t come close to paying for Yamaha to do it.

Pretty much every time someone says “Compay X would make a killing if they just did Y” what would really happen is Company X would lose their shirt.