[theunforgiven246]

which one sounds the most realistic and easy to use. i was thinking dfh2 because my guitarcenter has one instock for 99. i just want to get realistic (or as realistic as i can get) drum samples. it'll mainly be for hard rock/metal. i sometimes use blast beats if the mood strikes me.
please help me.

[Chris Feener]

Originally Posted by theunforgiven246

which one sounds the most realistic and easy to use. i was thinking dfh2 because my guitarcenter has one instock for 99. i just want to get realistic (or as realistic as i can get) drum samples. it'll mainly be for hard rock/metal. i sometimes use blast beats if the mood strikes me.
please help me.

DKH2 isn't the best for rock/metal IMO. Although you can, however, EQ/compress the shit out of them until they sound like what you want. I'd definitely recommend EZDrummer, it's what I use and I find it sounds 100% better straight out of the box!

[DSS3]

EZdrummer's stock samples are rather shit - the OH's are complete ass, and that's not something you can just "drumagog" away.


That said, they did just release a DFH add on for EZd.


THAT said, it doesn't hold a fuckin' candle to DFHS, even after the add-on!

[Dylan7620]

what would be the easiest program to use if you are just getting into this kind of stuff, i'm rather sick of "real" drummers lately lol
FWIW i suck at programing FL studio. looking for something very stright forward to get down to buisness with.

[DSS3]

Originally Posted by Dylan7620

what would be the easiest program to use if you are just getting into this kind of stuff, i'm rather sick of "real" drummers lately lol
FWIW i suck at programing FL studio. looking for something very stright forward to get down to buisness with.

EZd in Cubase/Nuendo.

[theunforgiven246]

so if i get the ezdrummer and the dfh add on its gonna end up being like 30 cheaper than dfhs so i might as well buy dfhs, but my computer wont be able to handle it.

[DSS3]

Yeah, but honestly, if your PC can't handle DFHS, it probably can't handle any decent plug-ins for mixing, or have very low latency, which basically renders it pretty shit for recording.

[smueske]

Get this http://www.native-instruments.com/in...9c189fc4e94bc2

And then augment it with the original DKFH sample CD. I think DKFHS sucks (at least in my environment). Battery 3 comes with 13 gigs of samples and a shitload of kits, has its own effects and, more importantly, is easy and intuitive use.

[gojira]

Originally Posted by smueske

Get this http://www.native-instruments.com/in...9c189fc4e94bc2

And then augment it with the original DKFH sample CD. I think DKFHS sucks (at least in my environment). Battery 3 comes with 13 gigs of samples and a shitload of kits, has its own effects and, more importantly, is easy and intuitive use.

I agree - I've used all of them - and battery 3 is by far the best - running a mixture of origional DKFH samples mixed with a few of batterys - the sound quality of DKFHS is abysmal - the level of noise in the samples is shabby and the character of the hits is always present - that and its bloated beyond belief in the name of it's overheads - which for all intensive purposes i have found can be easily bettered with the use of a few verbs.

Originally Posted by DSS3

Yeah, but honestly, if your PC can't handle DFHS, it probably can't handle any decent plug-ins for mixing, or have very low latency, which basically renders it pretty shit for recording.

Actually - thats nonsense.

The problem with DFHS is that it relies very very heavily on your CPU and RAM to recall a vast number of samples at rapid speed. Most other plugins like limiters eq's etc - dont work this way, and your latency is more closely linked to you audio card than anything else. You can Run DFHS on a smashingly fast PC running a sound blaster - that however has nothing to do with latency.

5 or 6 years ago - the typical computer used for recording probably couldn't run DFHS - but due to the relative consistancy of audio interfaces, could record just fine. People always think that you need some monster PC to record - you dont, you need a monster PC to run piles and piles of effects and synths - and as most if not all of these are applied after the recording process, latency at that point is far less of an issue.

[DSS3]

Originally Posted by gojira

Actually - thats nonsense.

The problem with DFHS is that it relies very very heavily on your CPU and RAM to recall a vast number of samples at rapid speed. Most other plugins like limiters eq's etc - dont work this way, and your latency is more closely linked to you audio card than anything else. You can Run DFHS on a smashingly fast PC running a sound blaster - that however has nothing to do with latency.

5 or 6 years ago - the typical computer used for recording probably couldn't run DFHS - but due to the relative consistancy of audio interfaces, could record just fine. People always think that you need some monster PC to record - you dont, you need a monster PC to run piles and piles of effects and synths - and as most if not all of these are applied after the recording process, latency at that point is far less of an issue.

The higher the buffer rate, the higher performance you're going to get, but it will also raise latency (when tracking). If that's wrong, then I'll quit recording, right now.

Anything with a solid bit of RAM and a decent processor can handle DFHS. If you're running anything less than a dual core G4 with 1ghz of RAM, your computer won't be able to handle multitrack (12+) recording/editing and monitoring with low (6ms or less) latency.

When I'm mixing a full band, I usually have some 40 tracks including effects bus's, with 50+ plugins running altogether - many of them CPU intensive like drum replacers or channelstrips. I need a dual core processor and 2ghz of RAM to do that - you can run DFHS on less, which is why I came to the conclusion I did.

If you can't run DFHS without hiccups and whatnot, you probably won't be able to track/mix a whole band.

Part of the reason you may be thinking it as nonsense is that it seems you're referring to a recording computer as a strict 'recording' computer - just tracking. When I think of a recording computer, it's a full on DAW - tracking, editing, mixing, mastering.