Better Swing - Swing Gallop Fix

OK, so I got home and checked why I was getting around 58% swing when I worked backwards from ONE's 60% swing .wav file. It turns out that for 16th notes, 60% swing is 60% of 48 ticks, which works out to 28.8. It looks like the 1K rounds down, so for 60% swing on 16th notes, I get the following (you only need three hits to get the pattern):

1.01.00
1.01.28
1.01.48
1.01.76
1.02.00

and so on, alternating increments of 28/20 ticks.

The only difference I can think might be that the 3K rounds the 28.8 ticks up to 29, which would get you closer to the 'real' 60% swing value.

Other than that, my best guess would be that on the other machines, you just happened to program a rhythm with more dynamic variation; those .wav files had every hat at max volume. That is going to sound horrible. Try lowering the velocity on the swung notes, and see how you feel about it then.

Now, who's got a 60/3K/2K that they can quickly enter a 16th note pattern and swing it to 60%, then give us some tick values?

ben

what I can remember the swing on the 2000 is almost the same as the 2500 .....so I m guessin the same for the 1000....yeah u cant exspect to have a hat on full level hit note repeat and work wonders,,,,use two or 3 hi hats

Lampdog wrote:

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

You and me both..

-S-I-G-H!!!!!!!!-







just posting for postings sake.


p.s.


COSIGN

yeah guys just to understand why is so hard keep the short way here

take an akai mpc2000 right... hi hat 16th note.... swing it at your prefererred &... do the midi... export... link here

----

here my 1000mpc
we know the 50% is this

001.01.01
001.01.24
001.01.48
001.01.72

----

right

if i apply a 52% swing will become

001.01.01
001.01.24
001.01.48
001.01.72

this mean NO changes

----

if i apply a 54% swing will become

001.01.01
001.01.25 (+1)
001.01.48
001.01.73 (+1)

as you notice something change

----

if i apply a 56% swing will become

001.01.01
001.01.26 (+2)
001.01.48
001.01.74 (+2)

----

if i apply a 58% swing will become

001.01.01
001.01.27 (+3)
001.01.48
001.01.75 (+3)

----

if i apply a 60% swing will become

001.01.01
001.01.28 (+4)
001.01.48
001.01.76 (+4)


and the rest you can imagine....

well...

what about old akai?
has the same swing settings?
don't talk about air in front of samples... just talk about midi!!!
swing is directly ticks delay of the 2nd and 4th note on a 16hihat sequence....

so

who can try with an old akai?

more...

the akai is 96 ticks for quarter note... the computer sequencer is 960 ticks for quarter note... that's why akai swing better.. and feel human... cause in eery wway is a lot 1/10 less precise of digital computer sequencing...
here a picture of the previous akai 1000 16th hi hat at 60% in logic midi editor...

[img]http://www.radiozoma.com/news/16th_60%swing.jpg[/img]

This is the most intellectual crunck thread ever...

ryssen wrote:This is the most intellectual crunck thread ever...

At least for someONE who never undertood how MPC swing works.. yeah it's all about that gallop.. there's no mistery it's just you and how you play with it : straight 16th makes like a clock, 16th triplets makes like a gallop and 50 to 68% swing let's you quantise between 16th and 16th triplets..now you program the pattern the MPC1000 doesn't

loozman wrote:

ryssen wrote:This is the most intellectual crunck thread ever...

At least for someONE who never undertood how MPC swing works.. yeah it's all about that gallop.. there's no mistery it's just you and how you play with it : straight 16th makes like a clock, 16th triplets makes like a gallop and 50 to 68% swing let's you quantise between 16th and 16th triplets..now you program the pattern the MPC1000 doesn't

I understand how it works, but the ear doesn't lie. Since the 1k dropped it has been all about the gallop, and nothing to do with LOOZERning the quantize.


BTW I didn't do anything velocity wise to the hats because I wasn't trying to astound you with my hat programming. I simply wanted to show the TIMING of swing...understand??!!

I have been doing my hats manually for some time now. However, like I said...I very much think the swing on the 1k could use a bit of an overall. If JJ is willing to put in the work to give us something better, why wouldn't we just request it, shut the flowers up, stop with the childish little unnecessary jabs, and debate.??!! YOU ALL KNOW THIS COULD BE IMPROVED!!

ONE - I understand that the timing of the swing was your focus. I'm just pointing out that one of the aspects of the 'gallop' that you're hearing could be due to the fixed velocity of the hats. We all know that the musical definition of 'swing' (as opposed to the MPC/Linn timing definition) covers accents as well as rhythm. Any fixed velocity rhythm is likely to sound like shit.

As far as I can tell, only the 4K, with 960 ppqn sequencer resolution is likely to give you accurate swing for any given percentage. The others (96ppqn) don't have the resolution. As you saw in psoul's post, small amounts of swing to 16th notes on the 1K aren't making any difference, just because the sequencer resolution isn't up to it.

Yes, I'm going way overboard on the analysis side here. But you know what? I'm a scientist so if someone puts up a hypothesis, I like to test it. Hey Lamp - do you have your 2K with you? Do us all a favour, repeat psoul's test and show the numbers. That should kill this thread.

There are two ways that I can see the swing being changed on the 1K: (1) round the calculations to the nearest integer tick (i.e. 28.8 becomes 29, not 28) [<- that should be 'twenty eight', not the smiley], but that's still an approximation that will likely piss someone off somewhere, or (2) raise the resolution of the sequencer. Obviously, (2) won't happen without serious compromises in other parts (I'm guessing it would have to be in polyphony). And that's assuming that the 96ppqn resolution isn't tied to some hardware clock.

Thanks for the effort, but where's that same exatct sequence on the 2k xl???? I thought you had both machines working... otherwise this makes no sense if one can't compare the timing.

I dont have my 2000 anymore but I do have a 2500 and from what I can remember the swing on the 2000 sounded like a gallop if you had it on full level with the same hi hat.......same with the 2500... maybe I ll go borrow my buddys 2000 (the one I sold him) and share a few examples.......but if someone could do that befour me right on

psoul wrote:don't talk about air in front of samples... just talk about midi!!!

Damn, so............

Analyzing the midi note swing ticks is fine and dandy and all, the AIR will affect the WAY you "hear" it, the TICKS are for precision of midi placement, obviously you now this. The ticks won't make any difference when/if you actually "listen" to the audio and air is in front of the samples. Your audio won't be the true swing you "saw" when you analyzed the TICKS.

So in conclusion, I can speak wtf I feel, about air.


Hey Lamp - do you have your 2K with you? Do us all a favour, repeat psoul's test and show the numbers. That should kill this thread.

@ ucacjbs, my mpc is still in the desert awaiting transportation back home, I gafl about this test though.

@ ucacjbs, my mpc is still in the desert awaiting transportation back home, I gafl about this test though

Fair enough. I'm beginning the feel the same way myself.

I guess the thing that gets to me sometimes is the mystique about the 'feel' of the MPC's sequencer, and that it 'sounds different' to many others. I just don't buy it.

Sure, the sampler can sound different, but the sequencer is what it is; it puts out events according to a list of times, just like any PC one will, or the one on your favourite workstation. I really don't think that the MPC's sequencer is tighter than any running on a modern computer. And it's resolution sure is worst than most these days.

For me, the magic of the MPC is the workflow and the physical layout of the thing and how I interact with it. It just makes sampling, sequencing and editing fun, much more fun than sitting in front of a screen.

Lampdog wrote:Analyzing the midi note swing ticks is fine and dandy and all, the AIR will affect the WAY you "hear" it, the TICKS are for precision of midi placement, obviously you now this. The ticks won't make any difference when/if you actually "listen" to the audio and air is in front of the samples. Your audio won't be the true swing you "saw" when you analyzed the TICKS.

So in conclusion, I can speak wtf I feel, about air.[/color]

I think Lamp has got a good point... You see, on the newer MPCs it is easier to chop your sample more precisely, right on the 1st transient. So perhaps the "different swing" that whoever was hearing on the older MPC's was actually a result of the fact that maybe the sample was not chopped right on the 1st transient. That would make the swing sound a little "lazier" since every time the sample hit it would be a few ticks late, then also every other 16th note would be even a little later.

That's actually a technique I use when chopping if I know I want the given sample to sound swung or lazy... it's basically the same thing as shifting it a few tics back like other people were talking about.

If the track is soloed, you're not going to be able to notice it, but if it is playing with another track that is not swung as much, then that's where you can notice that "different swing".

So perhaps the "different swing" that whoever was hearing on the older MPC's was actually a result of the fact that maybe the sample was not chopped right on the 1st transient. That would make the swing sound a little "lazier" since every time the sample hit it would be a few ticks late, then also every other 16th note would be even a little later.

Finally, I'm not alone in recognizing this "important" aural factor, someone else gets it and breaks it down for the slowpokes, whoever they may be, they know who they are.

i hear the word "slowpoke" here more than in daily life, it's mpc-jargon or something.