Vienna Symphonic Library Forum
Forum Statistics

184,839 users have contributed to 42,370 threads and 255,389 posts.

In the past 24 hours, we have 0 new thread(s), 10 new post(s) and 63 new user(s).

  • Time Stretching - shrink or elongate?


    Is there a prefered method to time-stretching regarding makimg it shorter or making it longer?

    I am at 166bpm and have a 150 sample and a 190 sample to time stretch. Which is better? Or is it just personal preference, and not a quality issue?

    Same question for the dyn samples...

  • I would go with the smaller difference per se, out of my experience with it.

  • That's my thought, too. I don't really know what stretching a sample does to it, quality-wise, but the analogy of making an image larger creating a lower quality image keeps coming to mind, so I was worried that stretching, as opposed to shrinking, might degrade quality (are you losing bits by separating them further from each other?). But if you only have to stretch a small percent, as opposed to shrinking a larger percent, it makes sense to use the option that disturbs the sample the least either way.

  • I have both shrunk and grown samples in all three qualities and I haven't noticed a difference between shrunk vs extended; but after a point things sound strange and even some unattractive artifacts introduced. I think it's an excellent stretch engine but some strangeness is to be expected.

    I've done a fair bit of stretching using Cubase's algorithms and I don't think 'lower quality' is quite the right question, but what happens to it harmonically; hence the numerous algorithms according to type, which is also seen in the three qualities here. Such as '3' is what I would certainly use to stretch a cymbal or gong roll etc.