MPC5000 timing in numbers

clint246clint wrote:Wow.

Are you going to challenge everyone who comments here?

Askia Shaheed wrote:Years ago, I tested MIDI sync with several MPCs. You can view the thread here:
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=65073&hilit=MIDI

**EDIT**

I misunderstood previous posts.

I've seen many threads over the years where someone would create tracks on an MPC..and then create tracks in a DAW...and then have trouble syncing the two properly. I found that MPCs have been pretty consistant. But MIDI is funny. I don't have any MIDI issues as long as I use one sequencer. In other words, I will use a DAW as a VST host and sequence everything from the MPC. Then I either arm the DAW to record the VSTs as actual audio...or import the MPCs MIDI tracks into a DAW.

On Topic:

At 90 BPM a granularity of 64 samples means a PPQN value of 459.375. That's still a really good resolution.. especially when you compare it to all the other MPCs (with the exception of the 4000) who all have only 96 PPQN.
But you know, even that's good enough. I can do pretty nicely swinging beats with a human groove on my 500 (five hundred) with only 96 PPQN. Most Hip Hop classics have been done with only 96 PPQN .

The other layering problem is much more serious. The only real workaround is to resample the layered sounds. A fix of this bug is my No. 1 wish for an MPC 5000 OS 3.0 if there will ever be one.

There appears to be some misinformation in this thread (or I am not understanding what some of you have written). To determine whether the MPC 5000 has 960 ppqn's, turn off quantize. Then enter Step Edit and count the number of steps in a quarter note. It should range from 1.01.000 to 1.01.959. If it does this, then the sequencer resolution is 960 ppqns.

JAH wrote:There appears to be some misinformation in this thread (or I am not understanding what some of you have written). To determine whether the MPC 5000 has 960 ppqn's, turn off quantize. Then enter Step Edit and count the number of steps in a quarter note. It should range from 1.01.000 to 1.01.959. If it does this, then the sequencer resolution is 960 ppqns.

Might be you didn't understand it then.
What we found out is that the sequencer resolution (which internally is indeed 960 PPQN) doesn't matter since the MPC 5000 spits out audio events on a grid with a granularity of 64 samples, regardless when an event in the sequencer occurs in between that grid.

otobot wrote:

JAH wrote:There appears to be some misinformation in this thread (or I am not understanding what some of you have written). To determine whether the MPC 5000 has 960 ppqn's, turn off quantize. Then enter Step Edit and count the number of steps in a quarter note. It should range from 1.01.000 to 1.01.959. If it does this, then the sequencer resolution is 960 ppqns.

Might be you didn't understand it then.
What we found out is that the sequencer resolution (which internally is indeed 960 PPQN) doesn't matter since the MPC 5000 spits out audio events on a grid with a granularity of 64 samples, regardless when an event in the sequencer occurs in between that grid.

Did you try this test with quantize turned off, creating a MPC sequence with notes inserted on 960 steps? Also do you try using both the analog outputs and the digital output (taking AD/DA conversion out of the process)?

JAH wrote:

otobot wrote:

JAH wrote:There appears to be some misinformation in this thread (or I am not understanding what some of you have written). To determine whether the MPC 5000 has 960 ppqn's, turn off quantize. Then enter Step Edit and count the number of steps in a quarter note. It should range from 1.01.000 to 1.01.959. If it does this, then the sequencer resolution is 960 ppqns.

Might be you didn't understand it then.
What we found out is that the sequencer resolution (which internally is indeed 960 PPQN) doesn't matter since the MPC 5000 spits out audio events on a grid with a granularity of 64 samples, regardless when an event in the sequencer occurs in between that grid.

Did you try this test with quantize turned off, creating a MPC sequence with notes inserted on 960 steps? Also do you try using both the analog outputs and the digital output (taking AD/DA conversion out of the process)?

Yes, it doesn't matter whether quantize is turned off or not. AFAIR I only used the analog outs. Don't remember if the other testers used the digital outs.

So you did do this test with quantize turned off using the 5Ks 960 ppqn resolution? Unless I overlooked it, you didn't report findings with quantize turned off.

I didn't place steps on every 960 P per quarter note. I tested at different BPM rates though.
I don't get why it would make a difference when steps are not on the sequencer grid.
Even the quantized steps should be more granular than a 64 sample wide grid and most of the time somewhere in between those fixed points. But at different BPM rates the resulting output was 100% and all the time on that fixed 64 samples grid.

Maybe you can do the test too? Do it your way with 960 steps per quarter note. I guess you'll be surprised by the outcome. Oh while you're at it you could try the digital outs too.

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

wow really interesting test.

tl;dr - the mpc 5000 comes in at the low end of the rankings....unless clocked from external source.

some highlights:
outperformed by monotribe
mpc 60 and 3000 are near perfect
tr909 has a sloppy ass sequencer

I notice the layer drifting when doing live pad hits(with out using the sequencer at all).
I'm assuming that the drifting happens in the part where the midi note tells what sample(or samples) to play.

After reading yr posts octo(and links to other threads) this would mean the the mpc suffers the serial protocol limitation internally aswell(regarding layering).

I wonder if the 5k has timing issues because the 8 track hard disk play back system would have to sync to sequence aswell.. or does the the internal sequencer slide and adjust to the hard disk playback..

It is really a shame and I do not understand MarboTurbo`s opinion on telling AKAI "get that ish sorted"!
It is a major flop to have such a big jitter. IT IS HEARABLE without even layering samples.
My first MPC was 2000xl and I could not geat a decent groove out of any unquantized performance on the pads no matter the number of overdubs. I did the litmus test -and the max. discrepancy was 60+ at 120 BPM.
Then I got a 3k and it really tells me every time an unquantized performance loop is played back where did I miss. Corrected\decently played performances are played as they are meant to be timing wise. that is where the head starts nodding.
And the measured max discrepancy was hmmm, 9 samples (it was 1 and zero samples most of the time). And 120 BPM are indeed 120 BPM in 3k (22050 samples averaged).
So to be groovy, the machine should be rock stable(MPC60 is too). The groovy beat you play on a sloppy machine just gets crippled walk. Plus the PEFORMANCE CAPTURE TIMING itself is already fukked up on a sloppy machine, plus it gets accumulated as the tracks are added.
Imagine an orchestra of drunk players - they do not read the score correctly (bad performance capture timing), everyone plays sloppy (bad playback timing), the orchestra as a whole sounds sloppy as .. (every track has its own sloppiness added).
Daam, I prefer a ROLEX that displays only minutes but accurately, than some finicky milliseconds-accurate claimed chronometer with the actual +- 1\2 hours accuracy.
BTW DO NOT CONFUSE the PPQ resolution with the MIDI jitter value. As I said, my 3k drifts to 9 samples, but it does nothing to do with its 96 PPQ. The drift is less than a tick thats why capturing the "MPC groove" to MIDI is senseless.

Try this:
Make a new synth program, set everything to zero except 1 oscillator, e.g. sine. If you play this sound, it sounds the same every time you press the pad. Now add another oscillator, also sine, same tune and level and play again. Sometimes the sounds will add up (the way it should be in my opinion), sometimes they'll cancel each other out, exactly like the layered drums donlimpio posted earlier in this topic.

BTW, this also happens on NEW 1000s, though my old 1000 definitely didn't have this problem. Seems to me it's a hardware problem, they seem to have replaced some part that's responsible for timing.

Not cool.

Hi
In the end I spent 1,300 euros for a car unstable?
For someone like me who does not have a good tribal house setting the time and notes / percussion playing, is a beautiful disaster .
disastrous

Does anyone know if Akai has any plans to fix this? I just did the same test on my 5000 and got the same jitter issue (+64) samples. This is NOT cool.