Dubstepforum.com

Turnipish Thoughts wrote:

jrisreal wrote:yes, you can make ANY sound with a synthesizer and the proper processing. Not saying its an easy task, though

missleading. All though its technically true, the utter joke of trying to accurately replicate a sound with very complex overtones would far outweigh the fuck about of getting a foley recording of the same thing in a recording studio.

Plus you're very often bound by the number of oscillators (and other params) on a synth and some sounds may just be too thick to reproduce effectively in respect to the hard/software at your disposal.

Question: "I'm looking to make a Jam sandwich; I've got some jam, a tube of toothpaste, a couple of bananas, a spanner, a half empty bottle of mosquito repellent and a pot of Greek yoghurt. can someone help me out tryna figure out how to squash it all into being a Jam sandwich?"

The point is, if there's a really simple way of doing something, or a really hard way of doing something, do it the simple way. The hard way might make you feel clever and make it seem like the sound is really complicated, but in reality all you've done is synthesize a symbol, why didn't you just record a fucking symbol?



I've learned this the hard way...

Well, you have the jam already....that's half the battle. You could sell the other crap and go buy yourself a loaf of bread for like 79 cents. Bam, sandwhich done.

On a more serious notes, it's true that it is just easier to record or buy someone elses recording (unless you can find one for free) of what it is you are looking to create. However, if we are talking something as crazy as a plane crash....well that's pretty much impossible to audibly record. Maybe "Impossible" is the wrong term, more like not plausible I guess. If you did happen to have a recording device on a crashing plane....especially a large plane, chances are the equipment will be damaged. Not to mention the amount of noise that would be generated would most likely be completely distorted and inaudible due to the recording devices input limitations.

However, you could go about doing things as they do with movies. When a plane crashes in a movie, do you think they actually went out and crashed planes until they had a usable recording of it? No! I'm no expert in this field by any means, but I would have to assume that a good amount of synthesis and simulated sampling is used.

It really comes down to what you know, what you can learn, and how you can apply it. I would say there are many ways to go about creating different sounds, and not every way is considered easy or hard to everyone else. Something like a cymbal can be done with a synths white noise generator which pretty much every synth has, and some good use of the ADSR envelope. However, something like footsteps down a hallway, although sounds simple, could be a rather complicated process that requires some decent knowledge of reverbs, filters, envelopes and soundwave properties. Of course I could be wrong there as I've never actually tried.

Basic A wrote:
Type long posts = people put weight on what you say.

this made me lol so bad

zawmbee wrote:I've just started to realize, from strenuous listening, that dubstep is beginning to just be synths. I know, I'm a bit late. I find it hard to even hear drums in common dubstep tracks nowadays, bar the occasional snare sound. So, where do I go from here? D:

Actually, I have a question: can any sound be made with synthesizers? By this, I mean typical basslines I can muster up with my mouth, haha. I'll go do some revision after exams.

brb, mastering synthesizers.

All music is 'synths' otherwise it wouldnt be music.. the synths make up the melodic side and make the track an actual song by adding thickness and tightening the dynamic ranges so that the song is listenable unless you want to sit listening to drum patterns with no actual music then this post it pointless ?

FuzionDubstep wrote:

zawmbee wrote:I've just started to realize, from strenuous listening, that dubstep is beginning to just be synths. I know, I'm a bit late. I find it hard to even hear drums in common dubstep tracks nowadays, bar the occasional snare sound. So, where do I go from here? D:

Actually, I have a question: can any sound be made with synthesizers? By this, I mean typical basslines I can muster up with my mouth, haha. I'll go do some revision after exams.

brb, mastering synthesizers.

All music is 'synths' otherwise it wouldnt be music.. the synths make up the melodic side and make the track an actual song by adding thickness and tightening the dynamic ranges so that the song is listenable unless you want to sit listening to drum patterns with no actual music then this post it pointless ?

hum not really... 2562's last album was all samples.. and some bands still play instruments without a synth... ur statement is very bold.

Basic A wrote:

Turnipish Thoughts wrote:

jrisreal wrote:yes, you can make ANY sound with a synthesizer and the proper processing. Not saying its an easy task, though

missleading. All though its technically true, the utter joke of trying to accurately replicate a sound with very complex overtones would far outweigh the fuck about of getting a foley recording of the same thing in a recording studio.

Plus you're very often bound by the number of oscillators (and other params) on a synth and some sounds may just be too thick to reproduce effectively in respect to the hard/software at your disposal.

Question: "I'm looking to make a Jam sandwich; I've got some jam, a tube of toothpaste, a couple of bananas, a spanner, a half empty bottle of mosquito repellent and a pot of Greek yoghurt. can someone help me out tryna figure out how to squash it all into being a Jam sandwich?"

The point is, if there's a really simple way of doing something, or a really hard way of doing something, do it the simple way. The hard way might make you feel clever and make it seem like the sound is really complicated, but in reality all you've done is synthesize a symbol, why didn't you just record a fucking symbol?



I've learned this the hard way...

I disagree with everything youve said here, because your making synthesis sound hard... while using the example of a cymbal... A cymbal would be some enveloped white noise. Alot easier and cheaper to synthesize a cymbal then find a drumset, decent mic, acoustically treated room, ect.

And there would be nothing easy about micing up a plane crash, do you really think you can even get a mic close enough to such carnage, wheres you could just as easily layer up a bunch of noises you synth?

Osc count isnt a limitation, additive theory says there is no wavecyclethat cant be made using three basic oscillators in the traditional raw waveshapes. From there, its just your job to get all those cycles into a chain that forms the sound you want.

Type long posts = people put weight on what you say.

fully agree with basic A, you make out that recording a sound cleanly is an easy thing to do and that to synth something is hard.

FuzionDubstep wrote:

zawmbee wrote:I've just started to realize, from strenuous listening, that dubstep is beginning to just be synths. I know, I'm a bit late. I find it hard to even hear drums in common dubstep tracks nowadays, bar the occasional snare sound. So, where do I go from here? D:

Actually, I have a question: can any sound be made with synthesizers? By this, I mean typical basslines I can muster up with my mouth, haha. I'll go do some revision after exams.

brb, mastering synthesizers.

All forms of dance music are 'synths' otherwise it wouldnt be dance music. the synths make up the melodic side and make the track an actual song by adding thickness and tightening the dynamic ranges so that the song is listenable unless you want to sit listening to drum patterns with no actual music then this post it pointless ?

Fixed?

meow meow wrote:

FuzionDubstep wrote:

zawmbee wrote:I've just started to realize, from strenuous listening, that dubstep is beginning to just be synths. I know, I'm a bit late. I find it hard to even hear drums in common dubstep tracks nowadays, bar the occasional snare sound. So, where do I go from here? D:

Actually, I have a question: can any sound be made with synthesizers? By this, I mean typical basslines I can muster up with my mouth, haha. I'll go do some revision after exams.

brb, mastering synthesizers.

All forms of dance music are 'synths' otherwise it wouldnt be dance music. the synths make up the melodic side and make the track an actual song by adding thickness and tightening the dynamic ranges so that the song is listenable unless you want to sit listening to drum patterns with no actual music then this post it pointless ?

Fixed?

... still... is it a rule.. and a false one...

one could put Most instead of all and id be a happy panda....

i hate narrow minded comments ... funny thing is im one of the most narrow-mind-commenting people around here...

it is true that most forms of dance musics, let alone musics nowadays use synths as part of their arrangements....

people would still be surprised of how much organic instrumentation is put in music tho..

I don't see why it matters. If you choose not to use synths for the sake of being "organic", then you're just limiting yourself and the development of your sound. I don't know, I'd just feel more comfortable with using a synthesizer, seeing as it is in a sense made up of organic sounds.

Can't even tell if we've gone off topic. I actually don't know what this thread is about :<

now did i say you couldnt use synths?????

or that organic recordings were better?????

i think ur makin me say shit i didnt say haha.

i spend most of my days tweaking presets...

Ldizzy wrote:now did i say you couldnt use synths?????

or that organic recordings were better?????

i think ur makin me say shit i didnt say haha.

i spend most of my days tweaking presets...

Haha, that message wasn't aimed or in response to yours. I was just saying in general. I thought that's what this thread was about lol

meow meow wrote:

FuzionDubstep wrote:

zawmbee wrote:I've just started to realize, from strenuous listening, that dubstep is beginning to just be synths. I know, I'm a bit late. I find it hard to even hear drums in common dubstep tracks nowadays, bar the occasional snare sound. So, where do I go from here? D:

Actually, I have a question: can any sound be made with synthesizers? By this, I mean typical basslines I can muster up with my mouth, haha. I'll go do some revision after exams.

brb, mastering synthesizers.

All forms of dance music are 'synths' otherwise it wouldnt be dance music. the synths make up the melodic side and make the track an actual song by adding thickness and tightening the dynamic ranges so that the song is listenable unless you want to sit listening to drum patterns with no actual music then this post it pointless ?

Fixed?

LOL well I thought people may pick up on the fact I was mainly aiming that at dubstep in general, didn't know one had to be so specific round here but hey you get it now

FuzionDubstep wrote:

meow meow wrote:

FuzionDubstep wrote:

zawmbee wrote:I've just started to realize, from strenuous listening, that dubstep is beginning to just be synths. I know, I'm a bit late. I find it hard to even hear drums in common dubstep tracks nowadays, bar the occasional snare sound. So, where do I go from here? D:

Actually, I have a question: can any sound be made with synthesizers? By this, I mean typical basslines I can muster up with my mouth, haha. I'll go do some revision after exams.

brb, mastering synthesizers.

All forms of dance music are 'synths' otherwise it wouldnt be dance music. the synths make up the melodic side and make the track an actual song by adding thickness and tightening the dynamic ranges so that the song is listenable unless you want to sit listening to drum patterns with no actual music then this post it pointless ?

Fixed?

LOL well I thought people may pick up on the fact I was mainly aiming that at dubstep in general, didn't know one had to be so specific round here but hey you get it now

sorry to sound so anal...

thing is people tend to think in a box a lot these days...

i think op just uses the word synth instead of lead or pad... in that optic i get ur point.

Basic A wrote:

Turnipish Thoughts wrote:

jrisreal wrote:yes, you can make ANY sound with a synthesizer and the proper processing. Not saying its an easy task, though

missleading. All though its technically true, the utter joke of trying to accurately replicate a sound with very complex overtones would far outweigh the fuck about of getting a foley recording of the same thing in a recording studio.

Plus you're very often bound by the number of oscillators (and other params) on a synth and some sounds may just be too thick to reproduce effectively in respect to the hard/software at your disposal.

Question: "I'm looking to make a Jam sandwich; I've got some jam, a tube of toothpaste, a couple of bananas, a spanner, a half empty bottle of mosquito repellent and a pot of Greek yoghurt. can someone help me out tryna figure out how to squash it all into being a Jam sandwich?"

The point is, if there's a really simple way of doing something, or a really hard way of doing something, do it the simple way. The hard way might make you feel clever and make it seem like the sound is really complicated, but in reality all you've done is synthesize a symbol, why didn't you just record a fucking symbol?



I've learned this the hard way...

I disagree with everything youve said here, because your making synthesis sound hard... while using the example of a cymbal... A cymbal would be some enveloped white noise. Alot easier and cheaper to synthesize a cymbal then find a drumset, decent mic, acoustically treated room, ect.

And there would be nothing easy about micing up a plane crash, do you really think you can even get a mic close enough to such carnage, wheres you could just as easily layer up a bunch of noises you synth?

Osc count isnt a limitation, additive theory says there is no wavecyclethat cant be made using three basic oscillators in the traditional raw waveshapes. From there, its just your job to get all those cycles into a chain that forms the sound you want.

Type long posts = people put weight on what you say.

I type long posts all the time and nobody pays any attention to a single word I say...

Basic A wrote:

Turnipish Thoughts wrote:

jrisreal wrote:yes, you can make ANY sound with a synthesizer and the proper processing. Not saying its an easy task, though

missleading. All though its technically true, the utter joke of trying to accurately replicate a sound with very complex overtones would far outweigh the fuck about of getting a foley recording of the same thing in a recording studio.

Plus you're very often bound by the number of oscillators (and other params) on a synth and some sounds may just be too thick to reproduce effectively in respect to the hard/software at your disposal.

Question: "I'm looking to make a Jam sandwich; I've got some jam, a tube of toothpaste, a couple of bananas, a spanner, a half empty bottle of mosquito repellent and a pot of Greek yoghurt. can someone help me out tryna figure out how to squash it all into being a Jam sandwich?"

The point is, if there's a really simple way of doing something, or a really hard way of doing something, do it the simple way. The hard way might make you feel clever and make it seem like the sound is really complicated, but in reality all you've done is synthesize a symbol, why didn't you just record a fucking symbol?



I've learned this the hard way...

I disagree with everything youve said here, because your making synthesis sound hard... while using the example of a cymbal... A cymbal would be some enveloped white noise. Alot easier and cheaper to synthesize a cymbal then find a drumset, decent mic, acoustically treated room, ect.

And there would be nothing easy about micing up a plane crash, do you really think you can even get a mic close enough to such carnage, wheres you could just as easily layer up a bunch of noises you synth?

Osc count isnt a limitation, additive theory says there is no wavecyclethat cant be made using three basic oscillators in the traditional raw waveshapes. From there, its just your job to get all those cycles into a chain that forms the sound you want.

Type long posts = people put weight on what you say.

Brilliant My first DSF debate, happy days!

I suppose my angle can be perceived as very 'pro sampling' so i apologize for that. Cutting yourself completely from one form of sound creation in favour of a possibly 'easier' one is silly and restrictive in all cases. Of course it is. As with anything context should direct which avenue you approach it from.

My point with the symbol wasn't about it being easy to make, it was about the relative ease of creation Vs end result, in regard to synthesis Vs sampling. So, in respect to the context of this cymbol sound alone, using a sample is allot easier AND the sample itself will ultimately sound more realistic than a synthesized version.

To the contrary trying to record a plane crash is completely ludicrous, over the top and out of the question. Where-as synthesizing the sound will obviously be the 'easy' approach here due to the down right outlandish logistics needed to record something so epic in real life. To be honest the context of a plane crash is a pretty weighted standpoint to take in arguing synthesis vs sampling.

I'm in no way trying to say that synthesis is not worth it, i use synthesis allot. The only point i'm trying to bring across is knowing what to use when. Nothing to do with learning synthesis theory or how to best go about recording samples. But the actual practical application of the two techniques in the creative process itself, and when its best to use a specific approach.

Turnipish Thoughts wrote:

Basic A wrote:

Turnipish Thoughts wrote:

jrisreal wrote:yes, you can make ANY sound with a synthesizer and the proper processing. Not saying its an easy task, though

missleading. All though its technically true, the utter joke of trying to accurately replicate a sound with very complex overtones would far outweigh the fuck about of getting a foley recording of the same thing in a recording studio.

Plus you're very often bound by the number of oscillators (and other params) on a synth and some sounds may just be too thick to reproduce effectively in respect to the hard/software at your disposal.

Question: "I'm looking to make a Jam sandwich; I've got some jam, a tube of toothpaste, a couple of bananas, a spanner, a half empty bottle of mosquito repellent and a pot of Greek yoghurt. can someone help me out tryna figure out how to squash it all into being a Jam sandwich?"

The point is, if there's a really simple way of doing something, or a really hard way of doing something, do it the simple way. The hard way might make you feel clever and make it seem like the sound is really complicated, but in reality all you've done is synthesize a symbol, why didn't you just record a fucking symbol?



I've learned this the hard way...

I disagree with everything youve said here, because your making synthesis sound hard... while using the example of a cymbal... A cymbal would be some enveloped white noise. Alot easier and cheaper to synthesize a cymbal then find a drumset, decent mic, acoustically treated room, ect.

And there would be nothing easy about micing up a plane crash, do you really think you can even get a mic close enough to such carnage, wheres you could just as easily layer up a bunch of noises you synth?

Osc count isnt a limitation, additive theory says there is no wavecyclethat cant be made using three basic oscillators in the traditional raw waveshapes. From there, its just your job to get all those cycles into a chain that forms the sound you want.

Type long posts = people put weight on what you say.

Brilliant My first DSF debate, happy days!

I suppose my angle can be perceived as very 'pro sampling' so i apologize for that. Cutting yourself completely from one form of sound creation in favour of a possibly 'easier' one is silly and restrictive in all cases. Of course it is. As with anything context should direct which avenue you approach it from.

My point with the symbol wasn't about it being easy to make, it was about the relative ease of creation Vs end result, in regard to synthesis Vs sampling. So, in respect to the context of this cymbol sound alone, using a sample is allot easier AND the sample itself will ultimately sound more realistic than a synthesized version.

To the contrary trying to record a plane crash is completely ludicrous, over the top and out of the question. Where-as synthesizing the sound will obviously be the 'easy' approach here due to the down right outlandish logistics needed to record something so epic in real life. To be honest the context of a plane crash is a pretty weighted standpoint to take in arguing synthesis vs sampling.

I'm in no way trying to say that synthesis is not worth it, i use synthesis allot. The only point i'm trying to bring across is knowing what to use when. Nothing to do with learning synthesis theory or how to best go about recording samples. But the actual practical application of the two techniques in the creative process itself, and when its best to use a specific approach.

Thing is, I dont think the OP was even talking about anything to do with this, I believe he was ranting because the drums in alot of brostep are so drowned by the midrange he cant hear them so he's saying 'all synths' to describe the lack of percussive sounds, not that the percussive sounds are synthesized...

but, on our conversation... its workflow, preference, and context. Not easy vs. hard... i think thats basically what your post above said, in alot more words then that.

FuzionDubstep wrote:

meow meow wrote:

FuzionDubstep wrote:

zawmbee wrote:I've just started to realize, from strenuous listening, that dubstep is beginning to just be synths. I know, I'm a bit late. I find it hard to even hear drums in common dubstep tracks nowadays, bar the occasional snare sound. So, where do I go from here? D:

Actually, I have a question: can any sound be made with synthesizers? By this, I mean typical basslines I can muster up with my mouth, haha. I'll go do some revision after exams.

brb, mastering synthesizers.

All forms of dance music are 'synths' otherwise it wouldnt be dance music. the synths make up the melodic side and make the track an actual song by adding thickness and tightening the dynamic ranges so that the song is listenable unless you want to sit listening to drum patterns with no actual music then this post it pointless ?

Fixed?

LOL well I thought people may pick up on the fact I was mainly aiming that at dubstep in general, didn't know one had to be so specific round here but hey you get it now

you can use a synth in any type of genre of music. period.

kaiori breathe wrote:

Basic A wrote:

Turnipish Thoughts wrote:

jrisreal wrote:yes, you can make ANY sound with a synthesizer and the proper processing. Not saying its an easy task, though

missleading. All though its technically true, the utter joke of trying to accurately replicate a sound with very complex overtones would far outweigh the fuck about of getting a foley recording of the same thing in a recording studio.

Plus you're very often bound by the number of oscillators (and other params) on a synth and some sounds may just be too thick to reproduce effectively in respect to the hard/software at your disposal.

Question: "I'm looking to make a Jam sandwich; I've got some jam, a tube of toothpaste, a couple of bananas, a spanner, a half empty bottle of mosquito repellent and a pot of Greek yoghurt. can someone help me out tryna figure out how to squash it all into being a Jam sandwich?"

The point is, if there's a really simple way of doing something, or a really hard way of doing something, do it the simple way. The hard way might make you feel clever and make it seem like the sound is really complicated, but in reality all you've done is synthesize a symbol, why didn't you just record a fucking symbol?



I've learned this the hard way...

I disagree with everything youve said here, because your making synthesis sound hard... while using the example of a cymbal... A cymbal would be some enveloped white noise. Alot easier and cheaper to synthesize a cymbal then find a drumset, decent mic, acoustically treated room, ect.

And there would be nothing easy about micing up a plane crash, do you really think you can even get a mic close enough to such carnage, wheres you could just as easily layer up a bunch of noises you synth?

Osc count isnt a limitation, additive theory says there is no wavecyclethat cant be made using three basic oscillators in the traditional raw waveshapes. From there, its just your job to get all those cycles into a chain that forms the sound you want.

Type long posts = people put weight on what you say.

I type long posts all the time and nobody pays any attention to a single word I say...

honestly, i does.

Ldizzy wrote:

kaiori breathe wrote:

Basic A wrote:

Turnipish Thoughts wrote:

jrisreal wrote:yes, you can make ANY sound with a synthesizer and the proper processing. Not saying its an easy task, though

missleading. All though its technically true, the utter joke of trying to accurately replicate a sound with very complex overtones would far outweigh the fuck about of getting a foley recording of the same thing in a recording studio.

Plus you're very often bound by the number of oscillators (and other params) on a synth and some sounds may just be too thick to reproduce effectively in respect to the hard/software at your disposal.

Question: "I'm looking to make a Jam sandwich; I've got some jam, a tube of toothpaste, a couple of bananas, a spanner, a half empty bottle of mosquito repellent and a pot of Greek yoghurt. can someone help me out tryna figure out how to squash it all into being a Jam sandwich?"

The point is, if there's a really simple way of doing something, or a really hard way of doing something, do it the simple way. The hard way might make you feel clever and make it seem like the sound is really complicated, but in reality all you've done is synthesize a symbol, why didn't you just record a fucking symbol?



I've learned this the hard way...

I disagree with everything youve said here, because your making synthesis sound hard... while using the example of a cymbal... A cymbal would be some enveloped white noise. Alot easier and cheaper to synthesize a cymbal then find a drumset, decent mic, acoustically treated room, ect.

And there would be nothing easy about micing up a plane crash, do you really think you can even get a mic close enough to such carnage, wheres you could just as easily layer up a bunch of noises you synth?

Osc count isnt a limitation, additive theory says there is no wavecyclethat cant be made using three basic oscillators in the traditional raw waveshapes. From there, its just your job to get all those cycles into a chain that forms the sound you want.

Type long posts = people put weight on what you say.

I type long posts all the time and nobody pays any attention to a single word I say...

honestly, i does.

+1

Turnipish Thoughts wrote:

jrisreal wrote:yes, you can make ANY sound with a synthesizer and the proper processing. Not saying its an easy task, though

missleading. All though its technically true, the utter joke of trying to accurately replicate a sound with very complex overtones would far outweigh the fuck about of getting a foley recording of the same thing in a recording studio.

Plus you're very often bound by the number of oscillators (and other params) on a synth and some sounds may just be too thick to reproduce effectively in respect to the hard/software at your disposal.

Question: "I'm looking to make a Jam sandwich; I've got some jam, a tube of toothpaste, a couple of bananas, a spanner, a half empty bottle of mosquito repellent and a pot of Greek yoghurt. can someone help me out tryna figure out how to squash it all into being a Jam sandwich?"

The point is, if there's a really simple way of doing something, or a really hard way of doing something, do it the simple way. The hard way might make you feel clever and make it seem like the sound is really complicated, but in reality all you've done is synthesize a symbol, why didn't you just record a fucking symbol?





I've learned this the hard way...

You should listen to your own advice. The simple response is yes. The long response is - what you said.

Basic A wrote:

Turnipish Thoughts wrote:

jrisreal wrote:yes, you can make ANY sound with a synthesizer and the proper processing. Not saying its an easy task, though

missleading. All though its technically true, the utter joke of trying to accurately replicate a sound with very complex overtones would far outweigh the fuck about of getting a foley recording of the same thing in a recording studio.

Plus you're very often bound by the number of oscillators (and other params) on a synth and some sounds may just be too thick to reproduce effectively in respect to the hard/software at your disposal.

Question: "I'm looking to make a Jam sandwich; I've got some jam, a tube of toothpaste, a couple of bananas, a spanner, a half empty bottle of mosquito repellent and a pot of Greek yoghurt. can someone help me out tryna figure out how to squash it all into being a Jam sandwich?"

The point is, if there's a really simple way of doing something, or a really hard way of doing something, do it the simple way. The hard way might make you feel clever and make it seem like the sound is really complicated, but in reality all you've done is synthesize a symbol, why didn't you just record a fucking symbol?



I've learned this the hard way...

I disagree with everything youve said here, because your making synthesis sound hard... while using the example of a cymbal... A cymbal would be some enveloped white noise. Alot easier and cheaper to synthesize a cymbal then find a drumset, decent mic, acoustically treated room, ect.

And there would be nothing easy about micing up a plane crash, do you really think you can even get a mic close enough to such carnage, wheres you could just as easily layer up a bunch of noises you synth?

Osc count isnt a limitation, additive theory says there is no wavecyclethat cant be made using three basic oscillators in the traditional raw waveshapes. From there, its just your job to get all those cycles into a chain that forms the sound you want.

Type long posts = people put weight on what you say.

2nded most of the old drum machines etc are synth based and loads of dnb and dubstep i respect (fucking current value and dean rodell and their nords come to mind) i'd love more synthesis based shit on here be it just simple envelope use for hits,stabs etc to complex modulation and resampling etc
so much shit overlooked that is learnable vs quick and dirty sampling