no quantize and higher resolution

Even though I am pretty sure I'm getting a 3k I have to know this... So, the question is, when i play something on the 4k, no quantize, will that result in my tiny inconsistencies of my drumming being even more noticeable? is the lower resolution of other mpcs like a mini-quantize with the limiting "grid" the lower resolution creates? or can the "grid" mess up your performance a bit?

If you turn quantisation on the MPC4000 "off", then it's actually quantising at "960ppq" - that 960 divisions per "quarter note" (or "crotchet" as we say in Britain).

At a tempo of 120 beats per minute in 4/4 time, that means each beat lasts...

1 minute = 60 seconds / 120 = 0.5 seconds.

The MPC4000 can thus position these beats with an accuracy of 0.5 s / 960 = 0.52 milliseconds

I can't tell you whether or not your brain is able to hear differences of 0.52 milliseconds, or whether your brain is able to tell your hands to hit the pads with that amount of accuracy...
What do you think?

You can of course turn *on* the quantise and set it as tight as to the nearest beat! So I don't really see how you can go wrong....

Feline, you are a gentleman and a scholar.

Great response Feline.

i see i see thabks very much for the elaborate explanation!

feline1 wrote:If you turn quantisation on the MPC4000 "off", then it's actually quantising at "960ppq" - that 960 divisions per "quarter note" (or "crotchet" as we say in Britain).

At a tempo of 120 beats per minute in 4/4 time, that means each beat lasts...

1 minute = 60 seconds / 120 = 0.5 seconds.

The MPC4000 can thus position these beats with an accuracy of 0.5 s / 960 = 0.52 milliseconds

I can't tell you whether or not your brain is able to hear differences of 0.52 milliseconds, or whether your brain is able to tell your hands to hit the pads with that amount of accuracy...
What do you think?

Hate to dig up and old post like this, but, your math is actually off.

There are 1000 milliseconds in a second, so, literally one millisecond would be 0.001 seconds.

Now, since you're dividing in "half seconds", which is 0.5 seconds, if you divided that by 1000 (rounding up from 960), you would end up with microseconds, or, 0.0005.

Now, if we divided by 960, it would be 0.00052 of a second, or 5.2 microseconds.

No biggie, but, I just wanted to clarify for anyone else that got thrown for a curve when initially trying to reproduce your calculation.

Eh?

0.000 52 s = 0.52 ms = 520 µs

a microsecond is 10^-6 of a second.

feline1 wrote:Eh?

0.000 52 s = 0.52 ms = 520 µs

a microsecond is 10^-6 of a second.

You're right. I just redid my math. My bad.