Discuss the various methods you use in music production, from compressor settings to equipment type.
By golden-era Sat Mar 24, 2018 10:55 am
I've never seen this question come up and I haven't seen an answer to this situation anywhere so i wanted to throw this out there to you guys.

Does anyone know or know how to calculate the double tempo programming equivalents of regular tempo mpc swing?

For instance, ive seen posts here showing the MPC with 1/16th QT and 66% swing in regular time equates to the following note placements:

01.01.00, 01.01.31, 01.01.48, 01.01.79
01.02.00, 01.02.31, 01.02.48, 01.02.79

This info is helpful with step editing. I always wondered what the double tempo programmed equivalents would be for those of us who step edit? I realize if you were to quantize in double tempo to achieve the 1/16 equivalent you need to program in 1/8 for dbl tempo.

Any math gurus or guys who just might know this?

Thanks
User avatar
By tapedeck Sat Mar 24, 2018 9:08 pm
lets see...
first i want to make sure i understand the math so i'm gonna compare no swing to 66% swing at 16th notes.
no swing at 16th notes means the 16th notes fall 50% between the 8th notes.
an 8th note is 48 ticks.
50% of 48 is 24 - so no swing 16th notes happen at
01.01.00, 01.01.24, 01.01.48, 01.01.72,
01.02.00, 01.02.24, 01.02.48, 01.02.72, etc

66% of 48 is 31 - so 66% swung 16th notes happen at
01.01.00, 01.01.31, 01.01.48, 01.01.79,
01.02.00, 01.02.31, 01.02.48, 01.02.79, etc just like you said

so now double the tempo, to still get 16th note resolution, we'll need to use the original values for 1/8th notes since the tempo is doubled.
8th notes at no swing are:
01.01.00, 01.01.48, 01.02.00, 01.02.48
01.03.00, 01.03.48, 01.04.00, 01.04.48

those in-between notes are the ones that will be swung, and now again, since we're doubled in tempo, the % will be working across 96 ticks vs 48 ticks.
so 66% of 96 is ~63.
new 66% swung double-tempo sequence would be
01.01.00, 01.01.63, 01.02.00, 01.02.63
01.03.00, 01.03.63, 01.04.00, 01.04.63

so basically you figure out how many ticks there are between the un-swung notes, apply the swing percentage to that, then add that amount to every un-swung note.
i think that works out fairly well.

x = number of ticks between unswung notes
y = swing percentage
z = unswung note location

z + (x * y / 100) = swung note location
:mrgreen:
By golden-era Sun Mar 25, 2018 10:21 am
Tapedeck,

Thanks for taking the time to analyze that. I believe you are close if not spot on because I was messing with it on the 2000xl.

Drum pattern was a simple ba-Boom Boom Bap. The"ba" essentially a ghost kick right before the main kick. At 1/8 triplets which equates to 16t in double tempo the ghost kick was placed on the 64 note. I know you got 63 so I think it's semantics I would have to try it applying swing.

Thanks for running the numbers I am surprised it never comes up since this is an old SP1200 trick.
By golden-era Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:53 am
Right I usually don't fret over note placements but some older samplers especially Ensoniq are quirky and even quantized the notes are placed incorrectly based on the mathematics you just provided. Now sometimes that off beat sound is cook but other times it isn't :o
User avatar
By Lampdog Wed Apr 04, 2018 2:44 am
The little things like incorrect timing on asr10 were cool imo.
User avatar
By tapedeck Wed Apr 04, 2018 2:47 pm
its actually really interesting re: quantisation. some sequencers might round down, some might round up, some round to the nearest number. i remeber a few years ago someone complaining about the difference between how maschine and mpcs quantised things.

i was writing a sequencer for someone one time and we tried all three options and i think rounding down was what we ended up going with.
By golden-era Fri Apr 06, 2018 8:27 am
Lampdog wrote: The little things like incorrect timing on asr10 were cool imo.


Lamp right except when it sometimes messes with the last note and if you don't correct it, your drum loop or sequence stutters lol. You ever have that happen?
User avatar
By Lampdog Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:52 pm
YES plenty of times, lol.

That one is a con fa sho.