Forum to discuss all matters relating to the MPC1000 and MPC2500 operating systems created by 'JJ' (all versions).
By jimmie Sat Jun 05, 2010 10:27 pm
I spent yesterday and today building a sequence with 12 tracks used.
I decided to bounce it to my daw to check out in my car so i muted everything, set Mute type:LEVEL, pressed play (and record in DAW) and began to mess with the mutes.
Something seemed wrong... it was stupid sloppy timing-wise. hmm...
I tested it in JJOS2 to see if it was tighter (even though it sounded screwed up) and it was.

It took me an hour to work out (in JJOS2XL) that if I changed Mute type to NOTE ON, everything was tight again.

So, very, very important: Don't use Mute type:LEVEL if ya want tightness. Use Mute type: NOTE ON!!!!!
By FAMOS! Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:09 am
This is NOT a bug. It's a feature that's great live or recorded in the studio. NYM posted it's use previously:
LEVEL kills the level of the track. polyphony is still used.
NOTE ON kills the NOTE ON of the recorded note.
LEVEL can cut out a sound mid playback.
NOTE ON will only mute a recorded note if it's muted before the note is triggered

Try it for yourself...HAVE FUN!
I hope this helps

for more detail please search out NYM's original post
By jimmie Tue Jun 08, 2010 1:38 pm
FAMOS! wrote:This is NOT a bug. It's a feature that's great live or recorded in the studio. NYM posted it's use previously:
LEVEL kills the level of the track. polyphony is still used.
NOTE ON kills the NOTE ON of the recorded note.
LEVEL can cut out a sound mid playback.
NOTE ON will only mute a recorded note if it's muted before the note is triggered

Try it for yourself...HAVE FUN!
I hope this helps

for more detail please search out NYM's original post

???
What the hell has any of that got to do with sloppy timing issues? (edited out my insult)
That not the issue. Go post elsewhere about something else totally irrelevant.
I know exactly what Mute type LEVEL is for mate. It's not rocket science.. Jeezus.

The relevant issue is that turning Mute type LEVEL on affects timing of the mpc.
Last edited by jimmie on Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
By jimmie Wed Jun 09, 2010 2:35 am
wudsiba wrote:This made me laugh like hell... I was thinking the same thing.

hehe.. well the thing is I was grumpy from spending hours on testing and sending a project to JJ, then spending an hour or two on writing a concise and detailed email with exact steps to follow to reveal the timing issues, only to get an email back 8 hours later saying "please write a concrete difference for how timing is different". This angered me a bit, but apparently JJ passed all testing to one of his testers that just dismissed it. So I sent even more precise and detailed instructions and explanations.
Here are the instructions and a link to the project... using JJOS2XL v1.39 or v1.37 on mpc2500:
Note that this is the first email of instructions I sent and not the uber-precise instructions.. but they are enough:

"
Download the test project at http://www.filedropper.com/mutetype
Load DXSHKICK.PRJ
(I've simplified the sequences and muted certain tracks to make the differences between NOTE ON AND LEVEL more apparent).

FIRST MUTE XOXBOX AND XOXBOX2 in seq1 and seq2 (this is just to make it easier to hear the timing differences).

TEST 1:

Go to seq1.

Hit TRACK MUTE.
Hit WINDOW.

Set Mute type:NOTE ON.
Press PLAY.
Let it loop over and over multiple times.
Listen to the timing of all the pads firing.

STOP.

Set Mute type:LEVEL.
Press PLAY.
Let it loop over and over multiple times.
Listen to the timing of all the pads firing.
Notice how the timing is looser especially when it loops around.

Change back to Mute type:NOTE ON and hear the difference again.
It's subtle but very noticable when you compare NOTE ON to LEVEL.

TEST 2:

Go to seq1.
Hit TRACK MUTE.
Hit WINDOW.
Set Mute type:LEVEL
Press PLAY.
Hit the + button once so the next seq to be played is seq2.
When seq2 is playing, hit - so the next sequence is seq1.
Keep switching between seq1 and seq2 whilst the mpc is playing.
Notice the timing.
Press STOP after you've done this for about 45 seconds.

Go to seq1.
Set Mute type:NOTE ON
Press PLAY.
Hit the + button once so the next seq to be played is seq2.
When seq2 is playing, hit - so the next sequence is seq1.
Keep switching between seq1 and seq2 whilst the mpc is playing.
Notice the timing. It's not perfect but a massive improvement.

Also, note the difference in tightness between letting one sequence loop and switching between seq1 and seq2. switching between seq1 and seq2 is a lot less tight with either NOTE ON or LEVEL Mute type.

please note: I would normally split my longer samples up rather than have them over two bars long in the sequence. I was in the middle of making a tune when I found this timing issue, so I didn't want to mess around too much in case I couldn't replicate the problem again.
"
NOTE: I've looped bars 1-4 to so you can really hear the timing issues involved when looping a sequence.

This is just a tune that I only just began working on and then came across timing issues.... So please don't judge me by it :P I don't mainly make house tunes.
Also, I'm fully aware that my mpc may be broken, so....
I sent an email afterwards saying that if timing gets sloppier as polyphony increases then I guess it's an issue inherent in the original mpc design.

Also note that polyphony maxes at 27 with Mute type:LEVEL so it's not going over the poly limit. AND I've tried splitting up my longer samples (after the uploaded project) and playing them in once every bar or two, but the timing issues remain.

So, the question is, is my mpc screwed or do y'all hear the same sloppyness? and if so, is it to be expected of the mpc2500?
I'll post mp3's of the difference on my mpc if you all don't hear the same thing.
Anywayz... I'm bearing all here so, be gentle...

Also note.. the buzzing on some of the samples is when the kitchen light (with dimmer switch) is turned on downstairs by my m8 who I share the house with lol... this was just a ruff draft of a tune... I didn't really care too much about any samples I recorded with buzzing on 'cos I kinda like a bit of noisy electro buzziness :P
By rarara Thu Jun 10, 2010 10:13 pm
ive tried this on a 2500 with 1.39 and there isn't an obvious difference between settings, but then maybe i don't have a good ear for these things.
By jimmie Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:00 am
Well apparently my suspicions were correct.. Extra polyphony even when not maxed out effects the timing of the samples being triggered... JJ said this to be true due to CPU load. I'm going to see if OS2 is any better.
By jimmie Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:03 am
rarara wrote:ive tried this on a 2500 with 1.39 and there isn't an obvious difference between settings, but then maybe i don't have a good ear for these things.

Sounds like our machines may be slightly different then because I can hear the difference quite dramatically.
User avatar
By elevated Sat Jun 12, 2010 6:21 am
Jimmie,

I hate to say it, but I think I confirmed your timing issue. To make sure we're hearing the same thing, I tracked out your sequence. MPC1K w/ JJ OS2XL (1.37).

The file is 16 bars long, and made of 4 bars chunks of either note-on recording or level recording. I added a synth hit every 4 bars-- Can you tell me which sets of 4 bars are sloppy, and which are correct?

http://rcpt.yousendit.com/889974101/698 ... 361474e3db
By jimmie Sat Jun 12, 2010 2:47 pm
elevated wrote:Can you tell me which sets of 4 bars are sloppy, and which are correct?

Cheers.. Yeah it's very, very obvious isn't it... In fact it's unlistenable when it goes sloppy... like a bad dj clashing beats.
I'd say bars 2,3,4,9 and 14 are most probably using NOTE ON (I dunno, maybe it's all LEVEL actually because it's not uber tight), but you can easily tell the sloppiness in the other bars.

The sequencer also goes sloppy when it loops around and also when it loops and switches to another sequence; this is more pronounced using LEVEL but is still there with NOTE ON.

I would have thought that Akai would have made it so that timing stayed solid if you were under the polyphony limit. Maybe the other OSes are more solid than os2xl? I dunno... going to test them out.
User avatar
By elevated Sat Jun 12, 2010 3:47 pm
Yep all correct, except for bar 9. We have a problem here. For me the solution will be not to use the "level" mute anymore, no big deal.

Curious to hear your results in other OS versions though.