MPC5000 timing in numbers

JAH wrote:

digiman wrote:
Just tried that and had similar results:
5504 5505 5568 5505 5505 5505 5505 5505 5505 5504 5568 5504 5505 5505 5504 5504

That actually looks fairly consistent. Even the deviation is consistent. If the call comes for some of us ol MPC 5000 beta testers...I will certainly direct them to this thread.

I am in the process of testing out some DAWs. Can I shoot you some wave files this weekend for you to take a look at...if you have some time?

I've got quite a few sessions over the weekend, so I don't know how much time I'll have to review any files. But, you can send me a file or two and I'll see what I can take a look at. You can just dropbox it to me.

dryad-66 wrote:Did someone do the same test with the 2500?because after layering two bass drums and triggering via the note repeat 16 ths i got the same flange effect as the 5000.This i tried in the shop with the akai os.Edit-(or 1000.)The 4000 was tight in this respect (and every other)

As I've said before, my old 1000 (from 2004) didn't have this problem, my new 1000 (2012) produces exactly the same error (I'll go ahead and call it that), regardless of OS. I guess this would be the same with older and newer 2500s, maybe some part of the hardware responsible for timing was replaced.

I can only quote the person before.

Do not expect any fixes for 1000/2500/5000. MPC Ren is taking priority over anything, why harm the sales of the new product by fixing those damn timing issues that the 5000 has.

here are all the numbers for internal and midi clock'ed timing for all MPC's: MPC4000/3000 shine, nukai needs to fix up !

http://innerclocksystems.com/New%20ICS%20Litmus.html

Re-awakening this old thread!

So, there must be thousands of 5000 users out there - does anyone really notice and does it really have much of an impact in real-world situations?

Can anyone point to some examples of highly quantised music made just on the 5000 internally?

And if it's the same on later 1000s and 2500s surely no one would use them - but loads of people do - so can't really be unusable or making a huge problem?

the 1000 and 2500 is not later... they are from before the 5000... and they dont run at all the same OS on them (especially when JJOS is a factor) ..

and highly quantized music isn't the issue... it is the less quantized stuff that may be an issue. OK for the boom boom bap timing guys, maybe it isn't a huge issue... but how about the people sequencing external nords and shit that want the real pianist timing? (if i remember what this thread is actually about.. i didn't re-read it)

Haha, thanks Mr Debaunch, yep it's a long post to read through!

mr_debauch wrote:the 1000 and 2500 is not later... they are from before the 5000... and they dont run at all the same OS on them (especially when JJOS is a factor) ..

People on this and other posts have said that later 1000 and 2500 do the same thing and that it might be a chip issue. JJOS doesn't look like a factor.

mr_debauch wrote:and highly quantized music isn't the issue... it is the less quantized stuff that may be an issue. OK for the boom boom bap timing guys, maybe it isn't a huge issue...

It affects all audio, regardless of quantised or not, as the buffer seems to release audio in 64 sample increments. It will be more noticeable on highly quantised music because it will be more obvious when audio is +/- 64 samples from where it should be.

mr_debauch wrote:but how about the people sequencing external nords and **** that want the real pianist timing? (if i remember what this thread is actually about.. i didn't re-read it)

It isn't anything to do with MIDI implementation.

Thanks

henryoakley wrote:Re-awakening this old thread!

So, there must be thousands of 5000 users out there - does anyone really notice and does it really have much of an impact in real-world situations?

Can anyone point to some examples of highly quantised music made just on the 5000 internally?

And if it's the same on later 1000s and 2500s surely no one would use them - but loads of people do - so can't really be unusable or making a huge problem?

Part from doing the rolling 16ths test and finding the flanging...i did not notice any effect generally sequencing quite intensively internally.And i like to play percussion which is busy.Tight !!!!!Vey cool actually.Certainly sat well with the 4000 and on listening back to both machines i even cant tell which is which !!!!! so.......

yeah i suppose doing a roll at a quantized time setting is the way to really find out.... but how odd none the less. And the midi part with external gear part i mention... wouldn't that be effected the same way as some internal sounds when being sequenced? Not that external stuff is different, i used the suggestion because of the possibility of a piano keyboard instrument being used by some sort of pianist.... who would likely tell something is off.

How come Innerclock have different jitter timings?

Akai: MPC-5000 - Pattern Sequencer

Internal Sync
> Audio Out - Max. Jitter between 16ths: 138 Samples (2.87ms)

External Sync
Source: MIDI Clock
> Audio Out - Max. Jitter between 16ths: 138 Samples (2.87ms)

http://www.innerclocksystems.com/new%20 ... itmus.html

@henry probably because they're using actual test equipment to get the results? Are you basing your results on the actual midi to sample output?