Better Swing - Swing Gallop Fix

Xserch wrote:ONE is right, the swing on the 1k is one of the worst sounding I have worked with. You can get around it by shift timing and not quantitizing but I really wish they could make it more realistic sounding so I would actually use it. If the 1k is all you have used though I can see why you wouldn't think anything is wrong.

That's what I do. I get around it by shifting notes etc. Finally, someone who understands. I had huge arguments with people on this board about the same issue. Just don't get why others don't think the 1k's swing sucks donkey balls.

dont use note repeat

then its good

ONE wrote:
I think it's also very odd how some of you completely assume that the 1k's shift timing and sequencer is programmed exactly like the other MPC's. Can you provide any evidence of that? Why are you so sure it is the same?

I'm not sure that it is the same, hence my suggestion that we write down the exact placement of the notes in MIDI M:B:T time format.

However, I would expect them to be the same (this is not the same as being sure), just because there was a set definition to swing when Linn developed the LM-1, which I believe carried through to the MPC 60 and 3000, and most likely the 2000 (and XL). Why would AKAI diverge from their own standard?

As for the definition look here: http://www.synthmuseum.com/linn/linlm101.html - scroll down to "The Linn Shuffle" to see swing discussed.

Edit: For what it's worth, I've never really got along with the swing, and prefer to play/program my shuffle manually.

ONE - can you save the .mid files for the three audio samples you gave and post those?

Once again, to prove my nerdiness, I checked out the wave file for 60% swing by using Audacity. According to Linn's formula, that wave looks more like a 58% swing. I tried a few different hits to work that out, but there could be some 'clicking error', although I doubt it's enough to throw things off so much given that each time I was very close to 58%.

I'd still like to see .mid files from a 1K and 2K.

I think it's also very odd how some of you completely assume that the 1k's shift timing and sequencer is programmed exactly like the other MPC's. Can you provide any evidence of that?

we're not the ones saying that the said swing is "fukked." when someone makes an accusation, it isn't the defense's duty to disprove it.

is the issue that the "gallop" is pushing the note too far back? are you saying that the 2000 cannot recreate that sound?

a "human sound" is simply not established using note repeat and swing, any good drum programmer can tell you that. ironically, the jj has made me eat those words in some ways, as now you can change swing/time shift with the qlinks, so logically you could make a nuanced performance using note repeat, 1 hat, and swing, but that's outside the argument.

FOR A THIRD TIME, for god's sake would someone address this:

how would a note played at the 58th tick sound any different on 2 different machines? note that i didn't ask about 58%, etc. i asked for an explanation of why specificially that increment would sound different on two different machines.

ucacjbs wrote:.....prefer to play/program my shuffle manually.

You and me both..

ok nobody here has an old mpc and a 1k??

we need just one test.... maybe around 56% to 60%... and please link midi.... not audio

so everybody could try his own 1k and check the difference!!!

i'm telling you, don't use percentages. choose a tick and stick to it, and then compare em.

yeah but i would like to see this dirrefent ticks in both 1k and 2k midi file

we need just one test.... maybe around 56% to 60%...

The reason why Ant says "ticks" is because percentages don't specify an exact tick slot to compare from which and it would be precise and in keeping with 96ppqn.

Also, the hihats need to have NO AIR in the front of the sample so as to hit EXACTLY when it's supposed to hit and not have any psuedo swing feeling going on due to that air being there.

I had a mpc3000 for years and now the 1000..swing is the same on both ..the kids...you know..

loozman wrote:I had a mpc3000 for years and now the 1000..swing is the same on both ..the kids...you know..

I had a 4k and used a mpc 60. Used the EXACT same samples on both the 4k and 1k personally. The 4k did not gallop on ANY swing percentage. There is a difference. I never heard a gallop on the mpc 60. Either on a 2xl. What's with all the resistance over this issue? You guys can all hear the gallop, pretty sure you can replicate it all yourselves. What's the harm in requesting JJ to improve it?

I'm not expecting to get a completely human feel out of note repeat and swing (I'm not that stupid....really), but at the same time I think swing should loosen things up a bit rather than just steadily place notes in a fashion were they are galopped.

loozman wrote:I had a mpc3000 for years and now the 1000..swing is the same on both ..the kids...you know..

So your MPC 3000 gallopped on 57% swing settings and above? Is that what you are trying to say? I wonder if other MPC 3000 users have that gallop that you are saying is on both the 1k and 3k...hmmmm...somehow I think not.

I don't know crap about the technical side and how swing actually works, but I could swear when I used to make patterns on my friends mpc 60 it sounded more authentic. I could be wrong though since I haven't used the 60 in years and what used to sound good might not anymore. Would like to see someone that has access to multiple mpc's to do a definitive test though.

swing = time shift, based on a percentage. all any of this stuff does is put something on a particular tick.

how could a time shift setting sound more authentic? unless other mpcs had different shifting code so that it goes something other than

1.00
1.56
2.00
2.56

etc etc? ticks don't lie.