Wondering what the latest is on these sample managers?
I’m leaning towards Atlas as it seems to be the easiest one to use if you just want to group similar sounding samples together and use them in your DAW (Logic for me).
But I’ve been playing with Sononym and it seems pretty powerful and has the added bonus of not only working with drum/percussion samples, I think?
Obv they’re all on discount this week, so I want to take advantage of that!
Has XO been updated since this discussion petered out?
How would you incorporate Sononym into your DAW?
Cheers
1 Like
I haven’t dived in too much but I picked up all three over the past couple months.
Haven’t opened XO, but played a bit with Atlas and Synonym.
I like the drum rack of Atlas. And making kits. Haven’t tried sorting samples yet though.
Synonym is great for going through folders so far. As long as it recognizes the folder structure. It’s nice to be able to preview really fast.
And I haven’t even got to the filtering yet.
I’d say atlas is graphical and synonym is file folder based.
I have XO and Atlas, and I just picked up Synonym over the weekend.
I like Atlas, but honestly never use it because I much prefer XO and use that. I prefer the 8 track approach, it’s mixing facilities are far superior and I really like it’s sequencer.
As I also use DrumComputer and Playbeat, XO just fits in really well to my drum plugins in Ableton.
I don’t get the same feeling from Atlas, but I would probably use it if XO didn’t exist.
I think Synonym is going to be a great companion to XO, as it offers a different approach to sample organisation that I really like so far.
So for me, XO and Synonym it is.
1 Like
I use all of the apps/software you mentioned and just bought Sononym last night. Thanks for mentioning this as it’s a really helpful sample management tool. I did use Waves Cosmos before, but this is buggy as hell and takes days to scan samples, only to then seemingly lose the data and need to re-scan, suffice to say it got uninstalled, which is a shame as I like CR-8 sampler and they go hand in hand operationally.
I have to say that I tend to use Atlas over XO, but see what you mean in relation to the sequencer. Atlas has had some good improvements over the last year, so I’m sure it will get better with time. XO keeps getting updates every now and then, but I don’t see any new functionality being added, unless I’m missing something.
Atlas would be killer on iPad OS!
1 Like
It comes down to personal preference. When I open up Atlas and play around with it, I do like it, but the sequencer never resonates with me and what I want to make music with. I have a similar feeling about the Roland TR8S, I know it’s fantastic, but it’s always felt like it’s not for me.
I tend to work at downbeat tempos (65bpm-115bpm max), and the sequencer in XO is great as a starting point. It’s quantisation settings are superb for getting subtleties into slower patterns/grooves. And then it’s workflow and UI are great, I love how the Edit screen gives you a complete overview of what’s going on with your kit.
In terms of functionality being added, etc, I don’t see much need personally… there are a few things in DrumComputer/Playbeat that I’d like to have (humanisation, probability, polyrhythms), but by the time I get to wanting these features I’ve usually moved the XO samples/patterns out into Ableton where I can do these things.
Synonym is something completely different though. I especially like the idea of building ‘Projects’ in it.
For example, I’ve had a 28gb folder on my computer for a while now that’s ‘Maschine Kits’, and Synonym is making it so much easier to make this content usable to me now… there are over 43,000 samples in the folder, and being able to filter Kicks with a brightness of 0-15%, tuned to C, etc, down to 150 options is a god send.
2 Likes
So I’ve been looking into software sequencers as I recently got Ableton Live. I have a semi-large sample library, and so I would like to try the big 2 in this thread (Atlas 2/XO) for their kit building abilities. But I also noticed you can do some interesting things with the sequencers here too…
I’m not looking for anything super advanced, (nothing like an Electron for example) instead I am mostly interested in that Polyend Play style where it’s a fairly simple/fun workflow with a sprinkling of randomisation/fill etc. The reason I thought one of these bits of software might do it is because of the AI pulling out samples that should theoretically work together like Play does.
Or is it more a case of looking up at M4L/Stochas/Opal for that kind of stuff?
Welcome any pointers 
2 Likes
Having a play with the trial of both of these. I have to say, they are both brilliant.
I’ve come to enjoy machines/synths/gear where you put stuff in (eg; a sample, a chord, some notes) and then the machine throws something back at you, which you tweak and back & forth. The classic example of this is a granular synth I suppose; you put in a piano note and it spits something otherworldly back at you. What feels fun about XO is that once you have selected your groove, you can then rotate through its suggestions for different samples and make minor adjustments. It feels like this weird combo of your own sounds & their AI makes a custom sample pack for you. Atlas feels more like you either get a full preset done for you (that you can of course tweak) or you get the kit and play it in yourself. The mad thing is the underlying workflow is quite similar, but actually they feel quite different in use. Overall it feels like the workflows are something like this:
- Atlas: Load a random kit & start playing. Either play in something in the sequencer, or load a pre-done sequence. Tweak & export.
- XO: Choose some suggested sounds. Build a groove. Tweak and edit the groove & on the fly, and try different samples. Grab the A/B or AAAB and export to DAW.
Loads of fun both of them.
2 Likes
Great run down. Thank you.
I have both but only use Synonym right now to look at the sounds and organize the sample folder.
I recently got a Maschine mk3, and it has a similar function with its piano roll. You can load the midi pattern of a kit, or play in your own, then shuffle through the browser, and it will audition other kits with the same pattern but all different samples.
It seems like this is becoming a new workflow feature across some major sample based platforms.
Even the TR8S and the 404 allow versions of this. Great way to start a groove.
1 Like
Any of you all own these and a Polyend Play? Curious on the comparison there in terms of sequencing.
don’t want to go too far off topic but any software drum sequencing discussion without mention of Modalics Beatscholar would be criminally remiss. I paid full price for it and have no personal connection to the Developers but please, please, please (james brown voice) believe me when I say that it’s the most incredible drum sequencing plug bar none…
I love it, and the Developers are a pair of unusually openminded people who are as talented as they are openminded which is really refreshing. They are the kind of people that will take what you think is a great idea and make it waaay better if they haven’t already implemented it themselves and I don’t care what idea you come up with somehow they actually know exactly wtf you are talking about already and they understand it intrinsically … a very rare company in this space for sure so if you’re interested in drum/sample sequencing you owe it to yourself to take a deep dive into Beat Scholar
1 Like
I don’t own the Play, but I have considered it (mainly because Polyend gear is super fun to use and has that sequencing magic sauce in there.) I’d be interested to hear from others who use both. But from what I’ve seen/read - when it comes to sequencing, the Play has all those probability and chance functions that these vsts don’t. A couple of other key differences are that the Play supports independent track speeds, lengths, has more patterns & variations, chord mode, and a wide variety of chance & fill modes to create musical ideas.
XO I feel replicates this in a light way, because you can choose from several euclidean rhythms - and when you change your samples, these suggested patterns are re-randomised. So by pressing the dice button a bunch of times, you’ll get (usually) some interesting fills & variations on the fly. What I like most about XO is how easy it is to swap either just one sample/track pattern, just some of them or all of them. From my trials, it feels like XO handles this well compared to Atlas. From what I’ve seen to randomise the actual track notes in Atlas, you either drag & drop a different rhythm, or go with what it spits out at random. (Another plus that Play might have is that if it records note length from live input, then this is something these 2 don’t do - though both can either accept or replicate velocity controls.)
It’s early days, but I can see a pretty solid workflow where you get all of the generative ideas you need from XO by doing an A/B sequence, then recording a few rolls of the dice. Within minutes you’ll have your MIDI/audio in the DAW. By using MIDI, you can then apply things like random velocity, chance, note length and change clip lengths for polymeters etc. I imagine the Play has a magic feeling to it that probably beats these because you can do it all on one device (and you can of course export audio stems from that too) but it feels like the XO/Atlas option is a fair compromise, given that it’s less than 20% of the price of the Play.
Yep, absolutely. I know that technically this is all somewhat replicatable in a DAW, but to me it feels like this is a good balance of musicality (musically tuned sample selection) sequencing (random pattern suggestion) and speed. All these things are technically do-able through things like chain selectors in an Ableton drum rack, but this obviously means you have to spend more time managing your kits. And you wanted (for example) to change one sample out in a kit, you have some sample admin to do. To my mind, the beauty of these apps is that not only do they help with sequencing, but they also do away with sample management almost completely.
2 Likes
Sounds like you are ready for Sononym to me… and maybe Playbeat 3… but definitely Sononym. 
1 Like
I agree… its like the sequencer is the sample manager outside the graphic field, which is hard to tell what everything is unless you audition and hover.
I agree with @CCMP, I mentioned above that I opened XO and Atlas both only a couple of times, but I use Synonoym ALL the time. I populated a folder system, that you click, shows a waveform, and you can see all the info about the sample. Key, what kind, bpm, and it also groups them in a list like XO and Atlas in similar sounding samples that you can click instead of the folder hierarchy.
Its like a folder system version of the other two.
But what I love about it is, I have a dedicated folder for all my samples, and I can rescan when I add more to it.
When i use my 404, I have a couple 32gb cards filled with samples, and searching and auditioning with the sub pad isn’t ideal for multiple folders and gigs of samples…
So what I do is I open Synonym, and Im sure I could dod the same with the others, and go to a pack and run through the list while my pattern plays on the 404, and if the sample doesn’t clash with the track, I’ll then go find it on the 404, and import to a pad.
I also mentioned that I am a Maschine mk3 user, and it has a very similar way of auditioning samples. And like XO and Atlas, you can swap sounds in the sequence, so its like a hardware version of all three.
I’ll take a look at Synonym thanks! Yeah when I first started getting back into music I really wanted a Maschine, and then all the M1 issues hit. Now I have Ableton, I’m not sure I’d prioritise it over what I have as there are workarounds for sampling. But if my boss wants to just route my bonus to Native Instruments, I will happily take one!
But seriously… I get the feeling from watching Maschine tutorials that Atlas is somewhat based on it. I think ultimitely, if gear gets out of the way of a process happening - then that makes me very happy. I love these one page synth/sequencer/samplers that have simpliefied interfaces and complexity under the hood. I made another post here about fun gear and I think XO is in that category. Maschine too, and in the Mk3 format it also has the benefit of a hardware/software workflow
1 Like
I mentioned elsewhere that I use a 404, but it’s not ideal for longer arrangements. And the mk3 is IDEAL for arranging because of the ideas and scenes modes.
But I had a specific need that the Maschine filled. Finding the Expansions were just a bonus.
But if you got it in Ableton, don’t worry about it. The Maschine has a big learning curve, as did the 404 for me, and I use Logic. But I didn’t want to make music in a DAW. I get lost in all the possibilities, and lose the focus of my intention. Having something to introduce limitations helps keep me able to see what I’m doing.
If you got the extra cash, I think Synonym is a great companion piece, but doesn’t replace what XO or Atlas does.
I own them all and they are neglected. I even got Drambo and AUM, and don’t have any time to look at them.
I don’t know Logic, but I can see how Logic & Maschine would be a great compliment to each other. In my mind Maschine is an instrument not an interface, which is why it gets a lot of love, much like the SP404. With Ableton being such a capable sampler - I can see why people maybe lean towards the Push there, as Push can do things like Lazy chopping which can speed up sampling workflows - and I think it can also do simple step sequencing also.
I’ve heard it said that a hardware setup can eaily be made with a sampler, a synth (or two) and a drum machine plus maybe a few effects. That’s what I’m holding myself to within the DAW, and so as you point out - XO is all I need for this for now at least. The others would be icing on the cake or on a crazy sale deal type stuff.
On a similar note, and coming back on topic slightly; I find another good way to look at the limitaions thing is to have literally no patience for anything. (Or I suppse - the limitation is my lack of talent 
) I get all the arguments that you can do anything in a DAW, but I like plugins to have a handful of controls and an on/off switch. If it requires too much more messing about or isn’t that intuitive - that’s time, effort and energy taken away from making music - much like this sample management discussion we’re having here. XO ticks so many of the “fast/easy/fun” boxes, it’s a no-brainer - and Atlas is a perfectly brilliant alternative for other workflows if you don’t vibe with XO.
Yeah I have a Play and its good but I question if I will use it enough to justify owning it. I may sell mine on here. It does have really good AI for randomizations though.
Sononym is awesome, I love that program for finding samples. Highly recommend. Starting to think that XO is probably fine for me, even though it’s not perfect, I can use it to build my core beat and then add interesting layers with single samples and other sequencers in Ableton.
The main thing I miss with the Play is sample management. It is really easy to put a drum kit together with AI and keyword search. To me that may be the best part of the software.
XLN has not updated XO in so long I wonder if they have abandoned it. Meanwhile Atlas has kind of a weird sequencer but it may be more powerful. It’s a tough call between those 2. I don’t know much about Playbeat.
It’s all about the combinations, right>>??
Sequencers and sample management… I’m really happy with my current software roster of;
- XO
- Sononym
- DrumComputer
- Playbeat 3
- Loopmix
Plus hardware options too… I feel in a good place with it all.
What does Playbeat bring to the table for you that XO does not? I also have Drum computer and that’s something I need to sit down and learn. It came in a software bundle and I have not dove in past fiddling with it for a few hours.
My beef with XO was the sequencing could be stronger. Curious what your workflow with Playbeat3 is.
This is where I am at the moment. If the goal is to get 70% of a beat done (and have fun), then it totally does that. The work bit can come later. The Play looks like an absolute fun box though to be fair. Now it has audio export I can see why you would want to have it for mucking about on the couch and a nice feeling away from the computer…
Playbeat is in my test at the mo so take this with a pinch of salt. I feels to me like the way Playbeat loads samples is somewhat similar to the way Atlas gets you to load grooves (aka, there’s more clicking around involved than XO), but the sequencer and the variations seems more advanced than both XO or Atlas. For example you can properly modulate stuff like pitch across a pattern, and create 16 variations on your groove. It’s also MIDI mappable which might be useful. I’m currently trying to work out if I can get it to play drum racks in Ableton…
1 Like