TOPIC: what to do with Instruments Sample/Loop-Start/End

Hello,
what is the advantage of individually setting the start and end of a loop in an instrument if these loop points have already been set correctly in the sample.

Example:
Instrument Rhodes Layer1 uses the following samples with the following parameters:
Rhodes F#01 mit Sample-/Loop-Offset: / / -1 / 61761 / -31
Rhodes C11 mit Sample-/Loop-Offset: / / / 673 / 2
Rhodes F#11 mit Sample-/Loop-Offset: / / / 40062 / -33392

Data of Samples (loops already set satisfactorly):
Rhodes F#01 Size: 62752, Loop: 8 / 62744
Rhodes C11 Size: 59783, Loop: 58436 / 5977
Rhodes F#11 Size: 73946, Loop: 8 / 73938

I am particularly surprised by the negative values (-1) of Sample end Offset and (-31, -33392) of End loop offset.

What can I do additionally with that instruments sample points what can not be done with the parameters of samples directly?
What does it mean to set an instruments loop end to -31 or to -33392?
Can someone help me to understand these parameters in order to apply them in practice?

The loop offset is meant to be used when you want to override the default loop configuration in a sample. For instance, I needed once to use the Harpsichord samples to create a new instrument, because the sounding of this instrument is similar in many points, but with different effects and onset. So instead of duplicating the samples ant setting them individually, I just duplicated the harpsichord entry and set it to sound as I needed, changing the sample starting point and its looping point.

As for the negative values, as well as any value out of the sample bounds, the synthesizer just calculate the position of the loop by shifting the point to somewhere inside the sample bounds, e.g. imagine a sample of size 5000 (valid values are between 0 and 4999), then you set the loop starting point to -500 and ending point at 9800. The real loop will be between 4500 and 4800.

Hope that helps

EDIT: I'm not sure, but I think the OFFSET is a value discounted from or added to the default configuration of the sample, e.g. if the loop starts at 10 by default and you set in the instrument a loop start offset of -6, it should start the loop now at 4. But as I stated I could be wrong, so just to be sure, run some tests to make it clear.

Thanks for your descriptions - you helped me a lot.

I'd like to clarify Filipe's explanation of sample offset specifications. I might be saying the same thing as Filipe but it wasn't clear to me. I believe this diagram accurately describes how sample start and end offsets shall be specified:If anyone can correct my understanding or add anything useful, please do so. The Polyphone Documentation is not very clear for these parameters.

Where did you obtain this diagram and explanation? I didn't test this in Polyphone, but seems pretty reliable. If this is right, then my explanation is partially incorrect... Following your diagram, an accurate example would be as follows: Suppose you have a sample file of size 1000. The samples contained in the file are "labeled" from 0 to 999. The start offset can only be positive integers from 0 to 999, and the end offset can only be negative integers from -1000 to 0. In practice, having e.g. 5 for start offset and -10 for end offset would mean that your sample file will start playing at 5th sample and end at the 989th one (you sum 5 with the minimum possible sample value and subtract 10 from the maximum possible value of sample)

Filipe Barros Rodrigues wrote: Thanks for the review, Filipe. I wrote that diagram and explanation today after some experimentation. The concept of negative offset for a defined range of samples invites the possibility of involving samples that don't exist. I couldn't wrap my head around that. It's not the way I would have designed it so I needed to understand it. I'm sure there were external considerations that led to the choice of using negative offset.

Your example analysis of a 1000 sample sound file matches my understanding. At the risk of sounding nit-picky, I think your use of "value" is a little off. I think a better term would be "sample index" or just "index".

Thanks - JJS