<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 22 May 2018, at 6:58 PM, <a href="mailto:rburnett@richieburnett.co.uk" class="">rburnett@richieburnett.co.uk</a> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">I suspect that a lot of the perceived "punch" in the sounds of early digital drum machines is down to the same sorts of processing applied to the acoustic drum recordings before sampling that we would apply to drums these days to obtain a more punchy and "produced" sound. Namely, things like dynamic range compression with artistically chosen attack/release times, gating, dynamic EQ, etc. Oversights in the recording process like allowing a fair degree of clipping also make things sound a lot harder too. Heavy clipping is not uncommon in the samples of these early drum machines!</span></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">.. and in the case of the first Roland "all-digital” drum machines (TR-707 circa 1984 onward), wasn’t there a little analogue envelope shaping trick at the end of the chain to really give them some extra whack?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Adam</div></body></html>