960ppqn vs 96ppqn

peace

The human ear can't distinguish sounds that occur less than 10 milliseconds apart, so unless you are aiming for a very off beat human feel, than 960 ppqn is complete overkill. The type of beats I make don't really require a ppqn higher than 96ppqn. I also don't need all my computer resources invested in trying to maintain a steady clock for such a high ppqn. It has nothing to do whether you are on beat or not, it's a matter of preference.

Here's a good article that discusses it.
http://home.roadrunner.com/~jgglatt/tutr/seqtime.htm

mcroepster wrote::lol:



peace

Do you contribute anything to these forums except smiley faces?

InspectahEX wrote:The human ear can't distinguish sounds that occur less than 10 milliseconds apart, so unless you are aiming for a very off beat human feel, than 960 ppqn is complete overkill. The type of beats I make don't really require a ppqn higher than 96ppqn. I also don't need all my computer resources invested in trying to maintain a steady clock for such a high ppqn. It has nothing to do whether you are on beat or not, it's a matter of preference.

Here's a good article that discusses it.
http://home.roadrunner.com/~jgglatt/tutr/seqtime.htm

Well, it's not just about notes that occur within 10 milliseconds of each other. It's in relation to the distance notes have to one another. For example, if I hit a high hat 4 times at 1/4 note timing (I I I I) with quantize off at 96 ppqn, my second high hat might sound like it's slightly too close to the first high hat in comparison to how I actually played it (or in comparison to how I wanted to play it). If I nudge it back a little bit, now it sounds like the right distance from the first hat, but now it's too close to the second high hat. So I nudge back the 3 hat a bit. And now I can't find a good compromise of distance between hats 2 and 3 and hats 3 and 4. With 960 ppqn, there is a lot more room to find a happy medium in the space between notes. And this is just me speaking from the experience I have with sample based music. None of this really applies to original compositions because I have the freedom to nudge around any note anywhere I want unlike with a sample. Plus the fact that with original composition, even though the notes are unquantized, they are still (technically) placed to a clock or grid in the way of PPQN. So it's less necessary to have finer control over your drums in relation to your instruments; because it was all created on the same clock. With sampled music, there is absolutley no type of grid, no clock, no PPQN. So a note can literally be anywhere in time. Having the higher PPQN allows you to align your notes to the notes in the sample and to each other more accurately.

As for that article, I'd bet it's pretty old. CPU's are far more advanced today and I doubt a high res sequencer puts much strain on the CPU, especially with multiple cores to handle other duties. 960 PPQN is pretty standard in most DAW's.

The perceptible difference between 96 and 960 is surprisingly small considering 960 has 10x more resolution. I seem to recall Feline mentioning that 1 tick equals 0.2ms @ 120bpm with 960ppqn resolution, which is tiny.

The 4K has got an 'OFF(96)' option in the Quantize menu which thankfully is right next to 'OFF', so you can bounce between the two in realtime. I've dropped some things down to 96 and kept others at 960. You need plenty of layers recorded without TC to hear the difference though. Having the choice is a bonus.

Coz wrote:Having the choice is a bonus.

Exactly!!!!

Coz, so you're saying this feature is basically like an on and off switch for 960/96 on the 4000? That's awesome!

Yo Coz, check your PM later if u can, I have a few questions about the 4000 I want to present you with

DJ Hellfire wrote:

InspectahEX wrote:The human ear can't distinguish sounds that occur less than 10 milliseconds apart, so unless you are aiming for a very off beat human feel, than 960 ppqn is complete overkill. The type of beats I make don't really require a ppqn higher than 96ppqn. I also don't need all my computer resources invested in trying to maintain a steady clock for such a high ppqn. It has nothing to do whether you are on beat or not, it's a matter of preference.

Here's a good article that discusses it.
http://home.roadrunner.com/~jgglatt/tutr/seqtime.htm

Well, it's not just about notes that occur within 10 milliseconds of each other. It's in relation to the distance notes have to one another. For example, if I hit a high hat 4 times at 1/4 note timing (I I I I) with quantize off at 96 ppqn, my second high hat might sound like it's slightly too close to the first high hat in comparison to how I actually played it (or in comparison to how I wanted to play it). If I nudge it back a little bit, now it sounds like the right distance from the first hat, but now it's too close to the second high hat. So I nudge back the 3 hat a bit. And now I can't find a good compromise of distance between hats 2 and 3 and hats 3 and 4. With 960 ppqn, there is a lot more room to find a happy medium in the space between notes. And this is just me speaking from the experience I have with sample based music. None of this really applies to original compositions because I have the freedom to nudge around any note anywhere I want unlike with a sample. Plus the fact that with original composition, even though the notes are unquantized, they are still (technically) placed to a clock or grid in the way of PPQN. So it's less necessary to have finer control over your drums in relation to your instruments; because it was all created on the same clock. With sampled music, there is absolutley no type of grid, no clock, no PPQN. So a note can literally be anywhere in time. Having the higher PPQN allows you to align your notes to the notes in the sample and to each other more accurately.

As for that article, I'd bet it's pretty old. CPU's are far more advanced today and I doubt a high res sequencer puts much strain on the CPU, especially with multiple cores to handle other duties. 960 PPQN is pretty standard in most DAW's.

I agree, in this case, a resolution of 960ppq is way better. There are more advtanges overall sing 960 for sure. But there are plenty of times in a beat where I say to myself, man, I don't need all this resolution, I wish It could just be straight up 96ppqn and it would make things a lot easier programming the beat.

Coz wrote:The perceptible difference between 96 and 960 is surprisingly small considering 960 has 10x more resolution. I seem to recall Feline mentioning that 1 tick equals 0.2ms @ 120bpm with 960ppqn resolution, which is tiny.

Yeah, exactly! That's why I say it doesn't really matter for original compositions. But when you're trying to layer your own notes over someone elses live instrumentation (especially drums), I notice a sizable difference in being able to get my drums to sit exactly where I want with Ren and Maschine vs my 2500.

@mpcholland, Next update we'll see

InspectahEX wrote:

Coz wrote:Having the choice is a bonus.

. Fed up with this pathetic Ren right now, can't even look it directly in the hardware lcd without a dirty look.

haha I feel ya.... But its like that girl u know u shouldn't be messing with....but she comes up close and u just got to hit that....only to find your self with a burning sensation while pissing a few days later...but maybe this **** can get rehabilitated.... maybe with her next update she will be a lady

I have enough patience for one more update, even though I'm stretching my patience with Akai here for almost 2 years now, this update will have to really impress me to contemplate holding on to the Ren long term.

MPCHolland053 wrote:

InspectahEX wrote:

Coz wrote:Having the choice is a bonus.

. Fed up with this pathetic Ren right now, can't even look it directly in the hardware lcd without a dirty look.

haha I feel ya.... But its like that girl u know u shouldn't be messing with....but she comes up close and u just got to hit that....only to find your self with a burning sensation while pissing a few days later...but maybe this **** can get rehabilitated.... maybe with her next update she will be a lady

Ill-Green wrote:Its simple.

96ppqn is for those wack at timing and can feel good that they know what they doing.

960Ppqn is a man's timing and those that are skilled in making beats.

If you prefer 96ppqn then your timing game aint all that, sorry.

This is utter nonsense.

The only thing I will say about 96 is that I prefer the swing it produces. Not just in an MPC but in everything that has a PPQ of 96. As Coz says you need a lot of stuff going on to hear it happening. It cant be heard with loops and triggered samples - OBVIOUSLY! You have to programme everything your self. The 4k I believe is a genuine PPQ switch.
If anyone thinks you cant get feel from 96 just refer them to DJ Shadow Entroducing as well as pretty much anything of that genre and that era...