1000 timing sloppyness proven

fwiw, i did this same test a couple months ago in a 'simult function' thread in 2500 forum i think... found the same thing on my 1k

does it really not do that on the 2.5k though? if not they should fix on the 1k cause i do think they have the same cpu.

on the other hand, except for phasing issues that doesn't really add up to "sloppy timing"; yes it proves it isn't sample accurate. but if its only off by a few samples that is not perceptable to the human ear/brain except for the phasing effect. to actually notice rhythmic sloppiness takes a lot more error.

i'm not saying the timing is or isn't sloppy, just that the phasing thing isn't really a definitive test.

Spirez wrote:Totally off topic but Medway have you got any house tracks to post up?

Back on topic, you could always make a sequence and save the entire memory with the samples and programs etc then send the folder to me and i'll open it up on my 2500. You can then resample the track into an audio file, i'll do the same and we could post both tracks to compare them.

I was under the impression that the CPU on both models was the same though.

Nothing to post as everything is copyrighted and on labels. Just go to any mp3 shop that sells dance music like Beatport and do a search for Medway.
If you check out my website I have a full discog as well.

Ok here's a clip of my loop. I'll get my friend to do another bounce of his as the levels weren't right and I want the test to be as accurate as possible. His kick was a little louder so it might be masking some of the probs but I deffinatly hear a difference. His is still loose a bit but doesn't seem as bad.
The fact is there is a deffiante difference when I reroute some of the drums to my S5000 through midi and have them play their instead of internally with the 1000.

www.medwaystudios.com/media/1000.mp3

If you listen to the spot right around 0:05 and 0:13 you can hear it the most. When I have half the amount of drums playing the snares and claps are hitting spot on, the more tracks I add the sloppier it gets.

Really to make this easy I should just do like one of the posters tried and take the same snare sound and copy it over a bunch of tracks and start unmuting them one by one, would be clearer then.

I just did another test where I had about 20 tracks of stuff going and then soloed my kick drum channel on my mixer (not in the mpc).

Then while that was soloed I soloded the kick track itself in the mpc, that way I could hear the kick isolated to compare. When it was soloed on the mpc it sounded tight, when I unsoloed I heard it go off (speeding up and slowing down).

What I dont understand is how my atari with notator was tighter playing midi into an s5000 than the mpc is on its own internal engine, shouldnt be that way.

Here I'll go ahead and put the 2500 loop here as well, again the levels in the mix are a little off from the 1000 clip and the overall level is a bit quieter.

I hear the 2500 have some slop as well but I don't hear the amount thats in the 1000 loop. Let me know what you guys think.

www.medwaystudios.com/media/2500.mp3

as far as i can see, that's the best test anyone can do for a comparison. the result is worrying though, i mean it's not like the bloody thing is checking emails or anything, it's a sequencer, that's it. you'd think it would do that perfectly. on the other hand, were you sequencing internal sounds in the 1k's sampler, or external ones? it could be a sampler latency issue rather than the sequencer's timing, just a thought.

interesting... i wonder if these same issues exist in the older models like the 2000XL and 3000? if not, then hopefully its something akai can workout in the software, otherwise i guess a decent dedicated rackmount sampler wouldnt be a bad idea to pair up with the mp

You know I used to be really anal about timing, but I'm starting to believe that a hint of sloppiness that is characteristic of all hardware sequencers is what makes them groove so nicely.
In these days of computer music everything sounds too rigid and I know you can program some random sloppyness into a DAW but it takes a lot of work.

Medway, loved that loop. That's the stuff I'm into. When I think back, some of my favourite house records were made using MMT8's and 909's running live, and these things are by no means tight but have a special groove all to themselves. Infact, I'm even thinking of picking up an MMT8 again just for it's aggressive funk.

it's funny you say that, because most people get an mpc because, being a hardware sequencer, it's timing is spot on, and it's pcs and macs that have sloppiness!

Mr modnaR wrote:it's funny you say that, because most people get an mpc because, being a hardware sequencer, it's timing is spot on, and it's pcs and macs that have sloppiness!

Well, I was refering to audio as apposed to midi and samples, and audio has absolutely no time variation whatsoever.

But yeah, if you're talking midi and samples then hardware sequencers handle this much better.

Does anyone know the architecture for the 1K/2500? If the CPU is responsible both for sequencing the MIDI AND sample playback, then it's surprising that the timing inaccuracies aren't more audible more often.

jigginz wrote:You know I used to be really anal about timing, but I'm starting to believe that a hint of sloppiness that is characteristic of all hardware sequencers is what makes them groove so nicely.
In these days of computer music everything sounds too rigid and I know you can program some random sloppyness into a DAW but it takes a lot of work.

Medway, loved that loop. That's the stuff I'm into. When I think back, some of my favourite house records were made using MMT8's and 909's running live, and these things are by no means tight but have a special groove all to themselves. Infact, I'm even thinking of picking up an MMT8 again just for it's aggressive funk.

The one thing that's really annoying is that I had big problems with my old PC with MIDI JITTER.

I thought if I buy an MPC - that sh*t would be gone!

I am VERY ANAL about the timing of a sequencer and if a sequence should have some "groove" - then I should be able to predict where it's gonna happen and how much.

If that "sloppyness" would be intentional and predictable to some point - I wouldn't worry about it - but this is just BAD.

I really hope that AKAI reads this and is already working on getting it done finally.

I mean COME ON - it's a 2 YEAR OLD machine and it still has those "theeting troubles".

And I really don't want to wait another year for some bugfixes.

I'm really getting disappointed with Akai and pissed about how they do support their machines.

I bought my mpc (not only but ALSO) BECAUSE of their reputation.

And I never considered the mpc1000 as a "toy" because it was cheaper than the other mpc's.
It had a few features less than the other mpc's but was also with some features ahead of the other machines.

So therefore it's more of an extension of their existing portfolio - AND because of that it should be treated with the same priority like a mpc2500 or similar.

I could have really lived well without the 2.x update - but a flawless working sequencer instead.
That is the most annoying part to it - adding a lot new features without eliminating the existing flaws.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The idea with the sampler latency might be very good.

Is that in case a problem that is solely based on the OS - or would that be a hardware thing?

I've experienced the problem with the random phasing not only if I put the same exact samples on two different tracks - BUT also when I do layer different sounds on one pad.

Has someone noticed that the mpc1000 gets even more sloppy if you use filters on your samples and use all the onboard FX?


Could they work it out with a new OS bugfix update?

I fear not if it's the CPU - and as I described above - I don't use the onboard FX (despite of the fact that they don't sound top-notch) anymore because of the additional sloppyness - THEN we really got a problem.

If that's the case, I'm pretty sure Akai knows about and it's a displeasing issue to them - and maintaining silence and playing possum might be their take on this issue.

Man, luckily I've upgraded my PC last year to 3,2GHz, 2GB of RAM, new intel MOBO and now cubase works really tight.

But I still want my "tight" hardware AS ADVERTISED by Akai.

all i can say is if this is fixable with a bug fix then cool , akai fix your s.h.i.t
if its hardware then ill take it as the 1k,s groove , thats inteded to be like this and just work around it if i find it doent suit the track like in your case ,
can you work around it by layering on the same pad and see if it has the same affect

Mr modnaR wrote:as far as i can see, that's the best test anyone can do for a comparison. the result is worrying though, i mean it's not like the bloody thing is checking emails or anything, it's a sequencer, that's it. you'd think it would do that perfectly. on the other hand, were you sequencing internal sounds in the 1k's sampler, or external ones? it could be a sampler latency issue rather than the sequencer's timing, just a thought.

\

These examples are all internal. When I move some of the drums to my S5000 and trigger them via midi the slop goes away (or gets a lot better).
Thats the ironic thing. The internal engine isnt as tight as sending out midi triggers to an external sampler. Should be other way around.

medway wrote:These examples are all internal. When I move some of the drums to my S5000 and trigger them via midi the slop goes away (or gets a lot better).
Thats the ironic thing. The internal engine isnt as tight as sending out midi triggers to an external sampler. Should be other way around.

well, in that case i would put it down to sampler latency, not the midi sequencer.