Originally Posted by gentleclockdivid ➡️

You're welcome

Originally Posted by sds1fs1r ➡️

Do they work in Reaktor 5? Where can I get them?
Btw I have a Rossum z-plane that just arrived, part of the 6U modular. Part of my birthday present.

Originally Posted by SkynetUK ➡️

I'm a bit late to the party, as ever!

My 2 cents, for what it's worth.


Simply put. Can't be done. Even if you were to lift the code direct from the Eprom, it wouldn't be the same in a plug in format. I think that has already been done with the EmulatorX software. Sadly it's the same old story... too many variables to re-create that sound. Would be nice, but I've tried everything and come full circle and found what really works....

EMU and Mackie together gives that sound, that's the main source right there.


Interestingly enough I recently purchased a Mackie 32/8 which was like new! Working condition was also amazing. So i did a test just using stuff straight from the DAW.

Plugged in 8 channels from focusrite convertor that I had available at that time. Loaded up some drums and soft synths and hit the Mackie where it hurts and bam, crappy sounding vst synths just took on a new dimension, same synths that I wouldn't even dream of using ITB sounded great! Drums sounded big and heavy, bright and clear. Now the Mackie is far from perfect, it has it's flaws for sure. I even tried running into the mackie and direct outs back into the DAW. Not the same. It's not just the channel strips... It's the way everything is mixed and hits the buss that some magic starts to happen. After all, it does have a 10hz -120KHZ bandwidth and doesn't produce any "Aliasing".

I even had it up against my SSL Sigma and while the Sigma was super tight and polished, the Mackie had more weight, was a bit more clunky, but the weight it had over the SSL was shocking. It also had a lot more depth and width, probably due to the channel variances. The more one goes towards perfect, the less desirable it becomes to the ear. Hence why we have issues in the Digital world.

Now imagine hitting the Mackie with the EMU, going to be even more different than the DAW

EMU Filters:

Low pass filter as everyone has pointed out was used mainly. Somethings I discovered about it.

1. The low pass doesn't cut off below 50hz, big factor in maintaining the low end as the sub always comes through at full cut off (Warmth)

2. The filter has a boost after the cut off point, which adds some presence and bite, that little soft fizz the EMU does so well.

3. LFOs and Envolepe's are different. They are not so tight. Different phase points on the LFO create a different feel, but they of course can be matched.

The EMU has a soft sound already. The first day I got an EMU I loaded up a kick drum from ZIP and the same kick drum loaded into my Akai 3200XL (Which I still have and still ****ing kicks ass). I then just triggered the kick drum direct from the audition button on both samplers.

The Akai is hard & punchy = Cold. Attitude Level 10

The EMU was soft, rounded = Warm. Smooth Silky Level 10

This plays out on both machines, giving them their sound. I was quite surprised at the time to discover how different the same sample sounded with straight play back.

Where that comes from could be many things within the machines. Not something I can comment on.

Tbh honest sometimes the EMU sucked and I had to go to the Akai and vice versa. I always looked at them like the SSL and Neve equivalents in the sampler domain.

EMU = Neve
Akai = SSL

Same goes for the MCP 60. The sound of hip hop back in the day was running those into an SSL4k giving that lo fi crunchy sound. Later the 9000J/K was used more and Hip Hop started to get away from that super low fi, hitting the 9000 from the MCP60 maintained a crunch from the Akai, but a solid, clean polished punch for the SSL. The sound of DMX... All mixed on the 9000 via the Akai.

And back to where we started, it's a combination of many things and of course not forgetting the main driving force.... The USER! Knowing those combos and what works and what doesn't is a big part of it too. I know lots of people that had EMUs and, well... Lets just say it wasn't a great advertisement for the machine.

It's like many things, combinations, processes, chains are what make sounds, Styles and Genres...etc.

As Matt pointed out on his drum chain, he took time getting that dialled in and nothing will ever get the same result. His process was unique to him and can be heard a mile away. Even if someone else had the same gear, they wouldn't have the same approach or knowledge and most of all, the same ear.

Many years ago I created this crazy little track called "Side Effects". The bass was from the Akai 3200XL running out into some processers then into a yahama O3D. Later when trying to remix it I had sold that desk and had a big Allen & Heath console. Same sampler, same processor, but **** I could never get it to sound the same. I even tried that same process into the Mackie and not the same. Tried the EMU and it also sounded rubbish. The EMU was way to soft and polite to achieve that attitude. So it goes to show, it's a ****ed up world! LOL

However. On reflection I think that is what was so great about that era, everyone had different set ups and different approaches, tricks and processors which I believe gave us a lot more distinctive and variable sounds/styles. Now everyone has the same set ups pretty much, same plug ins, same DAWs, convertors.

For me. It's just a matter of going back to that process as I have done recently. I actually find it so refreshing, even though it feels like a more laborious process, I find it more fun and 10x quicker to get results, results that are pleasing straight off the bat. I don't find myself spending hours on something that just sounds like **** after 10 plug in chains, processor screaming.

Anyway, If you guys find the holy grail let me know. Until then, I'll be busy pressing buttons and spinning those jogs wheels! hahaha

Originally Posted by Rogue Ai ➡️

Would love to find out if there's some ESI Turbo boards lying around in a warehouse somewhere... I'd love one.

Originally Posted by BHW ➡️

exactly because of this, im sure more and more new users will use hardware and consoles again, to get an unique sound and to experiment.

Originally Posted by andy-cytomic ➡️

Dom: you said you had no luck reproducing the sounds you were after using The Drop and an outboard desk. Can I please get you to work with me on this and help out reproduce them? You will need to dig out your sampler, and repeat the process both ITB and with the hardware. I think we'll be able to construct a workflow that does using The Glue and The Drop with oversampling, and some additional samples of the noisy output of the EMU and a desk.

Originally Posted by Yoozer ➡️

The “unique sound” is a weird argument if everyone suddenly jumps on the same E-mu Ultras everyone’s been using since the late 90’s anyway.

If you give two people identical hardware, you are not going to get identical results. How is that different from giving two people identical DAWs, plugins and whatnot? These don’t give identical results either.

The sameness is due to people using unmodified presets and samples that have been converging on sameness anyway, and the vastly bigger scale at which this is happening. It honestly does not matter that everyone uses Serum, just like it didn’t matter 100k DX7s were sold; it was that bloody E-Piano preset that made everyone tired of it because only a handful people knew how to get other sounds out of it.

Originally Posted by Deleted 27b07ea ➡️

Yeah odd argument. These units are in fact desired for their specific sound, already known and defined by 10 or so years of intense exploration as it became a genre-defining bread and butter studio essential. In other words, the exact opposite of a “unique sound.” They fell off precisely because of the sameness in sound, as producers sought new means of sonic exploration after rinsing these to death.

Originally Posted by aumgn ➡️

how does a sampler that can sample any sound become ' samey' ? i think its actually the sample libraries people were using and not the sampler back then that may have caused people to all sound the same . That and the fact so many artists did and still do make music based on what they hear others do more then self innovation and experimentation .

I think the guy saying ' unique sound ' is referring more to the filters and the sound of these samplers as hardware units compared to the sound of software but i would say a sampler is as unique as we each make it via what we sample and load into it ?

I dont really get the entire concept by using a sampler you sound like everyone else ? its a blank slate ? they only way you are going to sound the same as everyone else is if your all using the same presets and sample libraries and dumb enough to all be copying each other in a genre but that is how good genres are born and killed stone dead eventually.

People ditched these samplers when the promise of instant recall daw software came along and cheap vst and warez , convenience of use was king , thats why many people sold the hardware and lived happy every after in low grade audio heaven . Look its all in a computer mum !

Originally Posted by Optical Virus ➡️

Its like Quantum Teleportation or FTL...if you record the EMU output into a computer to show it as an example...you changed it's sound through your DAC and your wires you used and everything that came in-between..so it's not the real output...in my studio in 1997...I made every wire the perfect length out of the best audio cable I could buy and that made a huge difference to the quality in my studio...just the wires! I think making great sampler vsti's is gonna come close to alchemy...just like instruments in the real world...its just so complex...and when I hooked up my E-6400 live in my DAW mixes for an experiment it sounded broken and flat....?? Anyone?

Originally Posted by Yoozer ➡️

The “unique sound” is a weird argument if everyone suddenly jumps on the same E-mu Ultras everyone’s been using since the late 90’s anyway.

If you give two people identical hardware, you are not going to get identical results. How is that different from giving two people identical DAWs, plugins and whatnot? These don’t give identical results either.

The sameness is due to people using unmodified presets and samples that have been converging on sameness anyway, and the vastly bigger scale at which this is happening. It honestly does not matter that everyone uses Serum, just like it didn’t matter 100k DX7s were sold; it was that bloody E-Piano preset that made everyone tired of it because only a handful people knew how to get other sounds out of it.

Originally Posted by aumgn ➡️

how does a sampler that can sample any sound become ' samey' ? i think its actually the sample libraries people were using and not the sampler back then that may have caused people to all sound the same . That and the fact so many artists did and still do make music based on what they hear others do more then self innovation and experimentation .

I think the guy saying ' unique sound ' is referring more to the filters and the sound of these samplers as hardware units compared to the sound of software but i would say a sampler is as unique as we each make it via what we sample and load into it ?

I dont really get the entire concept by using a sampler you sound like everyone else ? its a blank slate ? they only way you are going to sound the same as everyone else is if your all using the same presets and sample libraries and dumb enough to all be copying each other in a genre but that is how good genres are born and killed stone dead eventually.

People ditched these samplers when the promise of instant recall daw software came along and cheap vst and warez , convenience of use was king , thats why many people sold the hardware and lived happy every after in low grade audio heaven . Look its all in a computer mum !

Originally Posted by BHW ➡️

read the original post. He said he used different analogue consoles to get different sound. It is about combining gear to get different results.

and as the number of emu samplers are decreasing and the population is rising less and lesser producers will be able to use emu gear. So this will later get a unique tool.

Originally Posted by BHW ➡️

read the original post. He said he used different analogue consoles to get different sound. It is about combining gear to get different results.

and as the number of emu samplers are decreasing and the population is rising less and lesser producers will be able to use emu gear. So this will later get a unique tool.

Originally Posted by aumgn ➡️

wasnt he suggesting that everyone who used them all sounded the same ? due to the Emu sound making everyone sound the same ? none of it made any sense as its a sampler , everyones going to sound different unless they are all stuck to using Emu factory sounds or the same sounds.

I read people stopped using these as they all sounded ' samey ' but the only way everyone sounds the same on a sampler is if they are all using factory presets or the same sample cds.

I dont argue its not unique , i use older samplers for their sound / colour / work and uniqueness , no sampler is the same in 2 different peoples hands unless they use the same sounds and even then theres a ton of stuff we can do to make our own music style unique.

Originally Posted by Deleted 27b07ea ➡️

because the emu is specific and limited

Originally Posted by sensing ➡️

I consider that a pretty bold statement for a synth that has such extensive modulation possibilities as the EIV sampler series.
When i think of a limited sampler i think of any Akai sampler before the s5000/6000.

They do have a sound, every synth has one. But your options for doing something different are larger than with nearly any other hardware sampler.
99% of the users probably never used those options.
If certain sounds in certain genres are done to death, that does not mean that there could not be a whole new world of sounds to explore.

Originally Posted by newguy1 ➡️

Maybe. I definitely don’t want to rule out creative possibility.

It has envelopes, lfos, filters, fx, resampling, and some beat chopping tools, standard stuff. It has a number of filters but that’s what’s been used so much, they’re all pretty recognizable in sound. Heavy use of the filters (with resampling) and the conversion is where the “sound” come from.

I dunno, i see these like a moog voyager or prophet 5. Something you get because you desire the most correct version of a known sound from a ton of older records. Maybe you can come up with something never heard on a prophet 5 but it’s just not that likely, they’ve been used to death, the sweet spots are known knowns.

Maybe that’s a limited perspective. I put in several years going hard on an emu after the boom, and that’s the conclusion i came to: Anything unique to the emu is quite distinguishable and already unearthed, and anything not unique can be better done on something else. That seems to be how most of the well known producers who rinsed them out use them, they moved onto other workflows for the indistinguishable stuff, and keep an emu around for when they need “that sound.”

For example Blu Mar Ten, who were 100% emu for years, in this pads tutorial (which is great!) where they say they used to use an emu for this stuff, and pan to the emu saying “it still has its place sometimes.” They’re putting an Lfo on a low pass cutoff filter to layer an ambiance sample from a movie into pads, so any sampler with a solid low pass will do. No need to go emu for this because it’s something that would largely be indistinguishable from sampler to sampler. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aDVnNOjSdLw

Originally Posted by BHW ➡️

i think the decisions of these producers to work in the box, is that they have recall and that they done need to take alot of gear with them when the go to another studio or on tour. and not a decision because a daw sounds better then an emu sampler.

Originally Posted by newguy1 ➡️

What I'm saying is that the distinguishable emu sound is a small range of something particular and known.

And for everything else, the difference is negligible, so an easier workflow ends up winning. There are also a huge number of things you can do processing audio ITB or with other gear that an emu can't do.

So the emu ends up "having its place" for when that small range of particularity is needed.

Originally Posted by gatty ➡️

I've read the first few pages of this, and would like to give my input.

It became aware to me recently that to get a pure waveform of any given distortion or saturation algorithm, we can simply use a pure low note sine wave, and apply distortion to it to a particular degree of our liking.

The same could be done with the EMU. We could put a sine through the EMU, applying distortion, and see the outcome waveform, and therefore, see what harmonic overtones are present and that will then be the distortion algorithm.

I'm guessing some mathematician or programmer can then reverse engineer the distorted waveform. Distortion from my understanding is created via a mathematical function, a unique multiplication of the fundamental tone which generates the final pure distortion waveform of that distortion type.

So based on the pure distortion waveform, the multiplication of harmonics, overtones and partials, they can be used to create a software VST which will generate the same distortion.

I've been using that same technique to create all my neuro bass sounds for the last few months.

It would be worth trying to see if that algorithm would then generate the EMU sound for a fundamental with both even and odd harmonics there after too, aka a sawtooth wave.

PS: I don't own a EMU, but love the sound it creates.

Hope that helps, thanks.

Originally Posted by daslicht ➡️

Is there meanwhile a software solution to get that sound ?

Originally Posted by daslicht ➡️

Is there meanwhile a software solution to get that sound ?

Originally Posted by Antti H ➡️

If you want to hear "the sound of the E4", listen to anything Hans Zimmer made in the late 90s / early 00s. Of course everybody ignores that and instead raves about them being used in some relatively niche genres (compared to Hollywood blockbusters).

Not that there really is much inherent sound to them. That was the design goal: To have high quality clean interpolation and filtering that didn't suffer from the artifacts that other samplers at the time (1989) suffered from.

Originally Posted by andy-cytomic ➡️

You can't really model much with such an approach, especially not non-linear filters being modulated which is what this thread is about. Have a read up on dynamic convolution and Volterra Series/Kernels if you're interested, but that would take around x100 - x1000 the cpu compared to just using the original digital filter.