Timing and Swing

Chillin wrote:The way one writes the algoritm (in a boolean) can affect the actual event and behavior of a process. The processes of the OS itself. This is indeed mystical, but rational math.

It is a simple calculation, it works the exact same way every time, you can see exactly where the events are being moved to, as Jerome showed in the post you linked to earlier.

There is nothing mystical about it at all.

Chillin wrote:I'm referring to the hardware midi in, -outputs. Not virtual midi.

In this context, when talking about the timing of the MPC sequencer, and referring to 1/16 hi hat litmus tests, etc., it is all about the internal MIDI, and nothing to do with external MIDI.

Chillin wrote:By "world clock sequencer" I mean the range of measurements of the "world clock" itself. the way it syncs more tightly.

That is WORD clock, not WORLD clock, the MPC does not tell you the time in various countries around the world.

And the word clock input syncs the MPC digital audio engine, it syncs the digital sample rate of the digital audio in two devices, it is nothing to do with sync of the sequencer, or timing of the sequencer.

SimonInAustralia wrote:But if swing is not based on timing (measurements), then how can you form actual rhythm (measurement) within a sequence (range)?

Swing is based on the sequencer timing, but it is not the sequencer timing, it is a function which moves events in the seqeuencer to new locations, that is all it does, once those swung events are moved, they are just like any other event in the MPC sequencer.

Without actual comparisons of where the events are moved to, at the same settings, in different MPC models, we really have no idea if the result of the swing algorithm is different between the models, or if it is just the overall timing of the sequencer that is different.

SimonInAustralia wrote:That is why I am not sure that litmus test is really relevant in terms of defining the timing accuracy of various MPC models.

We could easily use the Litmus test as the basis for a more thorough real world measurement, but it's not exactly a 5 minute job.

In short, if an 8 track drum loop was created in the Ren or a DAW, we'd have a baseline loop where measurements could be taken between successive hits on each track for comparison.

A MIDI file of the loop could then be saved and loaded into each MPC with 8 outs, tracked out using the same sounds and measured. I think it'd throw up some interesting results.

Hopefully Lamp will move the timing talk to another thread because it's more interesting than knowing what Pete had for dinner etc.

Chillin wrote:What I mean is experience with different MPC's, since you've mentioned the 3K, 4K and 5K. If so, did you notice difference in timing, as in personal experience.

I'd be going purely from memory of the various MPCs I've owned and used, which isn't an accurate measurement of anything.

The 4K 'feels' especially tight, but that might be partly down to perception. The 960ppqn and realtime quantize/shift amount just make it more musically functional to me over other MPCs though.

SimonInAustralia wrote:It is a simple calculation, it works the exact same way every time, you can see exactly where the events are being moved to, as Jerome showed in the post you linked to earlier.

There is nothing mystical about it at all.

So the calculation isn't based on algorithms? But I agree it indeed didn't appear there mystically.

SimonInAustralia wrote:In this context, when talking about the timing of the MPC sequencer, and referring to 1/16 hi hat litmus tests, etc., it is all about the internal MIDI, and nothing to do with external MIDI.

I misunderstood you then, since the conversation drifted off from the hardware talk.

SimonInAustralia wrote:That is WORD clock, not WORLD clock, the MPC does not tell you the time in various countries around the world.

And the word clock input syncs the MPC digital audio engine, it syncs the digital sample rate of the digital audio in two devices, it is nothing to do with sync of the sequencer, or timing of the sequencer.

Yes, that is what I meant saying. Word Clock, not world clock. This too drifted off from the hardware conversation. When I mentioned circuits and electric currents.

Also in reference to Coz's link "inner clock systems".

SimonInAustralia wrote:Swing is based on the sequencer timing, but it is not the sequencer timing, it is a function which moves events in the seqeuencer to new locations, that is all it does, once those swung events are moved, they are just like any other event in the MPC sequencer.

Without actual comparisons of where the events are moved to, at the same settings, in different MPC models, we really have no idea if the result of the swing algorithm is different between the models, or if it is just the overall timing of the sequencer that is different.

I know what swing is in measurements, I am a drummer myself. That's why I showed examples of drummers who used a swing measurement and expelling where jot came from. Roger used this to give the MPC real drummers feel, where the drummer some times hits a bit off on purpose or by accident.


To get back to the basics of the conversation. People noticed differences in the swing, wither its the swing algorithm between the different models, or if it is just the overall timing of the sequencer that is different. There appears to be a noticible difference to many people. And I requested to bring this variety in the MPC software v1.7.

Coz wrote:

Chillin wrote:What I mean is experience with different MPC's, since you've mentioned the 3K, 4K and 5K. If so, did you notice difference in timing, as in personal experience.

I'd be going purely from memory of the various MPCs I've owned and used, which isn't an accurate measurement of anything.

The 4K 'feels' especially tight, but that might be partly down to perception. The 960ppqn and realtime quantize/shift amount just make it more musically functional to me over other MPCs though.

It could be in our perception. And that of many others, true so.

Chillin wrote:And I requested to bring this variety in the MPC software v1.7.

Hopefully Akai understood what you were asking for, when you asked them, because it wasn't initially coming accross here very well.

We could easily use the Litmus test as the basis for a more thorough real world measurement.

MPC Software Sync Internal:
Track 1 - Output Port A

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Midi Note Events is .001 ms


This Test: External Sample Accurate Midi Clock (IAC Virtual Cable)

MPC Software Sync External:
Track 1 - Output Port A

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Midi Note Events is .007 ms

*MPC Software plugin Sync External/Host DAW:
Track 1 - Output Port A

Sample accurate. No variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth MIDI Note Events.

what a helpful bus

Bus wrote:

We could easily use the Litmus test as the basis for a more thorough real world measurement.

MPC Software Sync Internal:
Track 1 - Output Port A

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Midi Note Events is .001 ms


This Test: External Sample Accurate Midi Clock (IAC Virtual Cable)

MPC Software Sync External:
Track 1 - Output Port A

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Midi Note Events is .007 ms

*MPC Software plugin Sync External/Host DAW:
Track 1 - Output Port A

Sample accurate. No variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth MIDI Note Events.

Has nothing to do with testing or understanding swing.
Seems this is the real reason we have such strange discussions about swing, people are confused on what is and how it works.

Looks like a short bus?

What are those tests showing exactly in each one, can you give a little more of a detailed description?

SimonInAustralia wrote:

Chillin wrote:And I requested to bring this variety in the MPC software v1.7.

Hopefully Akai understood what you were asking for, when you asked them, because it wasn't initially coming accross here very well.

I initially addressed my point over there a bit different, from how this discussion went on. Because of the misinterpretation in the first sentence, which was partly my fault as well, by rushing what I wrote, cramping to different topic in one.

And it's simple, if it's not based on any specific algorithms (on a programming level), but purely a simple standard calculation of shift percentages. Which is then the same in all MPC models, therefore means there is no need for such implementation. And it also means that all people have imagined the differences. But is I said, I based this idea on what people have said about it, since I don't own these older models, except for the 5K.

But, we'll see if it makes the update.


I, however do hope realtime swing will be implemented in v1.7 (or beyond), as is in the 4000.

It appears this realtime swing auditioning, was discussed already over here.


viewtopic.php?f=36&t=151874



The requests were separate, btw.

THE ADVERSARY wrote:

Bus wrote:

We could easily use the Litmus test as the basis for a more thorough real world measurement.

MPC Software Sync Internal:
Track 1 - Output Port A

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Midi Note Events is .001 ms


This Test: External Sample Accurate Midi Clock (IAC Virtual Cable)

MPC Software Sync External:
Track 1 - Output Port A

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Midi Note Events is .007 ms

*MPC Software plugin Sync External/Host DAW:
Track 1 - Output Port A

Sample accurate. No variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth MIDI Note Events.

Has nothing to do with testing or understanding swing.
Seems this is the real reason we have such strange discussions about swing, people are confused on what is and how it works.

People do understand swing and how it's used, but there is a difference in interpretation on a global scale to why there is this "speculated difference" between models. If truly so, of course. Especially when the settings and calculations are the same in all models.


Swing in a real drum world it's considered an off beat note. Swing in a virtual drum world is an event, measured by shift in percentages off from the grid where the original note hits.

there's nothing conflicting about what everyone's talking about here... swing calculations would stay the same model to model, but sequencer accuracy was worse on the mpc - 60 with larger possible discrepancies between the perfect as written rhythm and the actual execution of those sequences... so we have a machine that has swing that feels different, in reality it's probably just always slightly losing sync and then catching back up due to early design, as design, software and hardware improves the mpc's get tighter and start actually playing back sequences perfect to the grid, and now i guess swing doesn't feel as loose as it did because it's actually being executed perfectly, so you'll have to nudge events to create that same looseness

fdodds wrote:there's nothing conflicting about what everyone's talking about here... swing calculations would stay the same model to model, but sequencer accuracy was worse on the mpc - 60 with larger possible discrepancies between the perfect as written rhythm and the actual execution of those sequences... so we have a machine that has swing that feels different, in reality it's probably just always slightly losing sync and then catching back up due to early design, as design, software and hardware improves the mpc's get tighter and start actually playing back sequences perfect to the grid, and now i guess swing doesn't feel as loose as it did because it's actually being executed perfectly, so you'll have to nudge events to create that same looseness

Are you sure you aren't imaging things here? Don't worry, you're not alone. (Sarc)