Timing and Swing

SimonInAustralia wrote:No, I can't find anything that shows it is incorrect, or correct, because it is incorrect.

If it is incorrect, you must have a source.

This article from a reliable source sheds light on this topic:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1996_ar ... ecode.html

This article indicates that if a MIDI sync pulse gets lost (MIDI Beat Clock), the sequencer will happily continue on and be 1 pulse late. This seems to indicate that any issues with your sync in your system can result in a drift of your devices.

MTC is sync using absolute time. And discusses the advantages and disadvantages in the article.

SimonInAustralia wrote:http://www.motu.com/techsupport/technotes/slaving-audio-to-smpte/

This is not related to the topic.

Word Clock and MIDI Beat Clock are not the same thing.

Bus wrote:If it is incorrect, you must have a source.

Someone has misunderstood the difference between MIDI Time Code and MIDI Beat Clock, and their use in conjunction with word clock, and have incorrectly written that in Wikipedia.

I was working through syncing up Pro Tools to some Tascam DTRS multitrack digital tape machines, and a BetaCam SP tape deck, 15 years ago. I got my head around these issues with SMPTE, MTC, and word clock back then. I have never seen reference to a similar situation that involves using MIDI Beat Clock along with word clock, to prevent drift, until now.

If it is correct, surely there is much more information out there to support it, that you can provide to back it up.

Bus wrote:This article from a reliable source sheds light on this topic:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1996_ar ... ecode.html

This article indicates that if a MIDI sync pulse gets lost, the sequencer will happily continue on and be 1 pulse late. This seems to indicate that any issues with your sync in your system can result in a drift of your devices.

Where does it mention using word clock along with MIDI Beat Clock to overcome that drifting?

How is word clock going to fix the drifting?


Find something to support what you have quoted from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia articles can be written by anyone at all, they do not have to have any idea what they are talking about, and in this case, I don't think they do.

Bus wrote:

SimonInAustralia wrote:http://www.motu.com/techsupport/technotes/slaving-audio-to-smpte/

This is not related to the topic.

Word Clock and MIDI Beat Clock are not the same thing.

That article discusses using SMPTE and MTC, along with word clock to resolve the timebases of synced devices, to prevent drifting.

That is what I am saying the Wikipedia author has mixed up with MIDI Beat Clock.

I know exactly what word clock and MIDI Beat Clock are, Jerome.

If you think you are going to take me to school, give me something decent to support your Wikipedia article.

Two sequencers (DAW and an MPC) sync'd using MIDI Clock can drift. This is what the Wiki article states as well as the Sound On Sound article. MIDI Clock is good for synchronizing tempo based devices like synths and arpeggiators. The Wiki article does mention Word Clock as a way to prevent the drift that MIDI Clock can suffer. Word Clock is for sync'ing digital audio. So this aspect of Wiki may or may not be accurate. I have no idea if MIDI Clock drift can be improved using Word Clock.

MIDI Time Code is superior for syncing two sequencers. It is based upon absolute time. This is important information for MPC users trying to sync their MPCs with a DAW. Your response "That applies to MIDI Time Code, not MIDI Beat Clock" doesn't appear to be accurate. Sequencers sync'd via MIDI Clock can drift while playing at the same tempo. MTC sync'd devices will stay locked by absolute time. If an error occurs, they will sync back together next time a valid code is received. If you are saying MTC needs word clock and MIDI clock doesn't, then this is also incorrect. MTC does not require Word Clock to sync two sequencers.

This should clear up any confusion between MTC and MIDI Clock.

Bus wrote:The Wiki article does mention Word Clock as a way to prevent the drift that MIDI Clock can suffer. Word Clock is for sync'ing digital audio. So this aspect of Wiki may or may not be accurate. I have no idea if MIDI Clock drift can be improved using Word Clock.

You posted that MIDI Clock drift can be avoided by using word clock.

That is what I said is incorrect, and what you want to argue about.

You have no idea, you can't find anything to back that up, maybe because it is incorrect. If it was correct, you would be able to find something to support it.

Bus wrote:Your response "That applies to MIDI Time Code, not MIDI Beat Clock" doesn't appear to be accurate. Sequencers sync'd via MIDI Clock can drift while playing at the same tempo. MTC sync'd devices will stay locked by absolute time. If an error occurs, they will sync back together next time a valid code is received. If you are saying MTC needs word clock and MIDI clock doesn't, then this is also incorrect. MTC does not require Word Clock to sync two sequencers.

Using word clock to prevent drift does apply to MIDI Time Code, not MIDI Beat Clock.

Find me something that says that you can use word clock to prevent drift with MIDI Beat Clock. You are the one claiming this is correct, provide some more information to support that.

MTC synced audio devices, including audio sequencers such as DAWs, will NOT stay locked by absolute time, without having word clock sync between the devices to resolve their timebases.

If their timebases are not locked, then they will trigger events at the same time, but then play/record audio from that point based on their own separate timebases.

That is what the SOS article you posted, and the MOTU article I posted, are all about.


Anyway, back to this same old shit are we Jerome?

Been to school for the year, and you think you can school everyone else, still not really understanding what you are arguing about?

Man up and admit who you are, it is obvious.

Let's get back to the original point.

SimonInAustralia wrote:

Bus wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIDI_beat_clock

Because of limitations in MIDI and synthesizers, devices driven by MIDI beatclock are often subject to clock drift. For this reason, it is a common practice on equipment that supports another clock source such as ADAT or wordclock to use both that source and MIDI beatclock.

I don't think that is correct, and that whoever wrote it doesn't really understand.

That applies to MIDI Time Code, not MIDI Beat Clock.

Do you have any links to a more technical source of that sort of information than Wikipedia?

Please provide something other than Wikipedia to support your quoted statement that it is common practice to use ADAT or word clock sync along with MIDI Beat Clock to deal with drift?

Otherwise, just accept that it is incorrect, try to learn something, and let it go.

SimonInAustralia wrote:You posted that MIDI Clock drift can be avoided by using word clock.

I never wrote that Word Clock is used to prevent MIDI Clock from drifting.

I said MIDI Clock will drift (sequencer sync'd to sequencer) and MTC will not.

MTC is all you need to sync a DAW with your MPC's sequencer. Word Clock sync'd is only used if you are connecting two or more digital devices via S/PDIF, ADAT, AES/EBU, and TDIF. If your MPC is connected to your audio interface via analog I/O, you will not be using Word Clock as there is no two digital audio sources requiring sync. Your DAW is set to internal (Master) and there are no Slaves. You are mistaken on this subject.

Article on digital clocking (info only):
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr13/a ... 0413-2.htm

Article on MIDI Sync (info only):
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1994_ar ... ation.html

What would Judge Judy say?

You will automatically lose the case if you misrepresent facts in front of Judge Judy.

SimonInAustralia wrote:

THE ADVERSARY wrote:It's not the same on various MPCs, not sure where this assumption comes from.

So the swing calculation moves the events to different sequencer locations, on different MPC models, when using exactly the same swing settings?

No, the calculations and interpretations used within a given model aren't the same.
They are all trying to assure the same end result but the math to achieve it is different.

Bus wrote:You will automatically lose the case if you misrepresent facts in front of Judge Judy.

And your punishment is to be stuck with an MPC5000 sequencer for 12 months...

THE ADVERSARY wrote:No, the calculations and interpretations used within a given model aren't the same.
They are all trying to assure the same end result but the math to achieve it is different.

How can this be proven?

Bus wrote:

THE ADVERSARY wrote:No, the calculations and interpretations used within a given model aren't the same.
They are all trying to assure the same end result but the math to achieve it is different.

How can this be proven?

I think Simon might be right about this being Jahrome.

Was curious as to why he chose the name bus until I remembered he's a Steeler fan.
Mike Tomlin was his avatar for a long while so I guess now he wants to be Jerome Bettis instead of just Jahrome.

I was asked to provide the sequence files for the MPC Software and MPC 4000. These attached sequences are 2 bars of 1/16 notes for each MPC. The sequences were then quantized using a 57% Swing and Shift Timing of +3.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nkny0z9k83k3 ... 2E8_ASo8Ba