parallel compression mpc5000

otobot wrote:The seperate samples are triggered by two different MIDI events. MIDI is a serial protocol and two events at the same time will never go out like 100 % exactly at the same time. First one of the events, then the other one.

That's not a "problem" of only the MPC 5000... all hardware samplers will act like that when you layer two sounds triggered by a MIDI sequencer (it's own seq or an external one).

We have a winner!
I know this is how it is in the XL but didn't know if they got around to it in the 5000. Seems like it could be done for the internal sounds (internal only) with enough effort, bypassing midi for internal operations. Might make it a lot less stable though. I'm full of it though I've never tried programming a hardware sampler os.

otobot wrote:Y'all confusing the MPC with DAW software. In any DAW the MIDI implementation is sample accurate.. in any hardware sampler it is NOT because of the physical limitations of the MIDI protocol.

Wait up homie, youre not safe either. Are you sure? I dont think midi implementation has anything to do with "sample accurate". What are you differentiating between MIDI protocol and MIDI implementation?

http://www.eqmag.com/article/whaddya-me ... ug-03/2102

dustymaestro wrote:

otobot wrote:Y'all confusing the MPC with DAW software. In any DAW the MIDI implementation is sample accurate.. in any hardware sampler it is NOT because of the physical limitations of the MIDI protocol.

Wait up homie, youre not safe either. Are you sure? I dont think midi implementation has anything to do with "sample accurate". What are you differentiating between MIDI protocol and MIDI implementation?

http://www.eqmag.com/article/whaddya-me ... ug-03/2102

Within a DAW software the MIDI implementation is virtually sample accurate. That's why several MIDI events at the same time that trigger virtual instruments in a host like Cubase or Pro Tools, etc. will go out at the same time. That's why you won't have a varying phasing or comb filtering of overlapping MIDI events that trigger VIs. That is if you stay in the box.

If you use a physical MIDI out port of your soundcard and trigger outboard MIDI devices (like sampler, synth) the whole thing will be subject to the laws of physics again. The events will go out one after the other because MIDI by definition is a SERIAL PROTOCOL.. not a parallel protocol.

From what I've read in this thread, people were expecting from their MPC the same sample accurate MIDI implementation that DAW software has.

BUT it's the same with ANY MPC:
-> Physical MIDI.
-> Serial protocol.
-> Subject to the laws of physics.
-> Not sample accurate.
-> Layered snares -> phasing / comb filtering

By the way, I get much better results layering snares in the MPC with the simult function and using the attack portion of one of the snares and more the decay/release portion of the other snare by ways of the ADSR envelope. This way I won't have much comb filtering and the designed sound is IMO much more interesting.

Or layer the snares like you used to and resample the whole output.. that way the layered and resampled snare will sound exactly the same each time.

I hear what youre saying but the definition of "sample accuracy" is different than what you are inferring to. There is a link to the definition.

Otobot is correct.
Sample accuracy can apply to anything, it's just described in terms of samples.

Consider for a second that the one 'whaddya mean sample accurate' article you keep referring to is not the only article ever written on the subject ;].

The MIDI implementation within software can be sample accurate. Over a MIDI cable it cannot.

So point out a place where we can agree. Is he wrong?

Is who wrong?

nogginj wrote:Otobot is correct

"The degree in which the sound is accurate" Nothing to do with MIDI. Again its sample accuracy not midi accuracy.

You wrote that Craig Anderton who wrote the piece on sample accuracy is not the only one. I am asking, is he wrong?

I doubt Craig Anderton is wrong, but consider for a moment that, since all you have to back up your statements is that one article, you could be wrong.

Let me break it down for you.

Track 1 plays a sound.
Track 2 plays the same sound.

To play these sounds, an event is triggered.

That event, wholly unrelated to the sound (whether it be midi, osc, or some internal event), can be sample accurate or not.

Shit, you could rig up a machine to slap a wet badger and have it be 'sample accurate'.

The whole point of sample accuracy is that two things that are supposed to happen at SPECIFIC points in time, happen EXACTLY at the specific point in time.

This is impossible over a midi cable because no two events can happen at the same time.
In a DAW, they can get pretty damn close to happening at the same time....within the range of one sample.

Or you can point out the part of the article where Mr. Anderton (a fine, knowledgeable fellow, btw) says what you say, "Sample accuracy cannot exist in terms of midi"...because I don't see that part in there. I see a lot of very correct information, but I don't see any mention of how a DAW sequences events, or even how a MIDI sequencer does it (the issue at hand).

Thanks Nogginj.

Dustymaestro, Craig Anderton's article about sample accuracy in loops and what I said about the sample accurate implementation of MIDI within DAW software (triggering VIs) doesn't necessarily contradict.

Point is that people have no varying flanging when layering sounds using VI samplers like Battery and expect the same behaviour from a hardware unit like their MP that's subject to the physical limitations of the MIDI protocol.

nogginj wrote:I doubt Craig Anderton is wrong, but consider for a moment that, since all you have to back up your statements is that one article, you could be wrong.

Let me break it down for you.

Track 1 plays a sound.
Track 2 plays the same sound.

To play these sounds, an event is triggered.

That event, wholly unrelated to the sound (whether it be midi, osc, or some internal event), can be sample accurate or not.

****, you could rig up a machine to slap a wet badger and have it be 'sample accurate'.

The whole point of sample accuracy is that two things that are supposed to happen at SPECIFIC points in time, happen EXACTLY at the specific point in time.

This is impossible over a midi cable because no two events can happen at the same time.
In a DAW, they can get pretty damn close to happening at the same time....within the range of one sample.

Or you can point out the part of the article where Mr. Anderton (a fine, knowledgeable fellow, btw) says what you say, "Sample accuracy cannot exist in terms of midi"...because I don't see that part in there. I see a lot of very correct information, but I don't see any mention of how a DAW sequences events, or even how a MIDI sequencer does it (the issue at hand).

Here is another definition from somebody other than Mr. Anderton.

Sample accuracy/synchronization
Not as much a specification as an ability. Since independent digital audio devices are each run by their own crystal oscillator, and no two crystals are exactly the same, the sample rate will be slightly different. This will cause the devices to drift apart over time. The effects of this can vary. If one digital device is used to monitor another digital device, this will cause dropouts in the audio, as one device will be producing more or less data than the other per unit time. If two independent devices record at the same time, one will lag the other more and more over time. This effect can be circumvented with a wordclock synchronization.


See the problem is your making up the definition by using it as a homonym. That is not a universal truth. Hmmm....maybe youre wrong? No you are wrong. Actually he does talk about daw's. The only reason it loops properly is because it has a automatic loop function. Not every crystal is exactly the same. Midi and sample accuracy can cause similar problems. They are also two different things. Hmmm, maybe that's why he doesnt talk about midi?

Dustymaestro, what are you talkin about???

There is sample accuracy regarding the MIDI implementation within a DAW software as long as the MIDI events stay in the host. That was one of the main selling points when those "audio-midi-sequencers" (another name more common back in the days) with virtual instrument and effect plug-ins were introduced. Contrary to what it is in the physical MIDI world.
Most people in this thread here that find the behaviour of their MPC strange in regards to MIDI event layering seem to only know the sample accurate MIDI of their DAWs or have become so accustomed to it that they have forgotten how physical MIDI behaves.

Let me say it again, in the physical world MIDI is a SERIAL protocol. All the hardware samplers and standalone sequencers (like an Atari ST with Cubase 2.0) and samplers like the MPC's with their own MIDI sequencer suffer from this sample inaccuracy. It's not even so small that we should talk about samples (1/44100 of a second), but more in the region of several milliseconds.

The articles you're linking to and info you're quoting has NOTHING to do with what we're talking about. Digital audio synchronization (wordclock, etc.) and sample inaccuracy of looped portions in a DAW or sample-loops have NOTHING to do with sample accuracy of MIDI events in a DAW.

What are you trying to prove?

That "sample accurate" has a meaning.