elektrik_muz wrote:Um.. yeah we already got that part here in the thread but where's your scientific timing analysis to actually show the basis of this claim?
Ok I give you props for actually naming a piece of software that claims to dish out the "canned magic" but this brings up a question -- how exactly are those ReGroove MPC 60 (or even real MPC 60) swing percentage presets any different than the same swing percentage selected on the 1000 or any other sequencer?. You'll have to take that one into the timing lab to prove it, too.
Even if it's for real it doesn't prove anything as far as the 1000s ability is concerned. Reason running on a modern Mac has much higher timing accuracy than MPCs (except 4000) and if you want to ultra-subtle timing offsets analyzed from a whole slew of different sequencers you're going to need it.
I don't doubt that different sequencers can produce different results, but I want real measurements to prove it. Does that make me a snob?
Man!
I wish that I can locate the article online which Roger Linn explain scientifically the timing of his world renowned sequencers.
Here's some info
.
The Linn Shuffle:
"Linn's shuffle feature was unique in the drum machine world, and it's found on every device he's manufactured.... On the front panel of all but the earliest LM-1s is a column of six red LEDs, labeled from 50% to 70% in increments of 4%. Linn explains: 'In order to create a sixteenth-note swing or shuffle feel, you unevenly split the timing of an eighth-note, thereby delaying every second sixteenth-note by some time factor. The LM-1 percentages signify the interval between the first and second sixteenth-note and between the third and fourth sixteenth-note, and so on. If you want both notes to play perfectly even - no shuffle - you would select 50%, which means 50/50. If you make it one clock later, it would be 54/56, or 54%. Delaying it two clocks makes it 58/42, or 58% for the first half and 42% for the second half.'"
Roger Linn: »Before my machines there were home organ drum machines, that had a button that says Rock 1 and Rock 2 and Samba and Tango and Bossa Nova. They had a volume and tempo control and a start button and that was pretty much it.«
Dave Smith: »Roger invented the first digital drum machine, the first machine that had swing in it, and all the concepts that are permanent fixtures since.«
Roger Linn: »We're very passionate about what we do. We would have invented these products even before getting paid for it. When I got my first rudimentary computer which for $3,000 had a whopping 24K bytes of memory and cassette storage, all my friends said: "You're crazy, what does it do?" And I said: "Well, there are these blinking lights." I thought there was art in this box. My quest was to pull the art out of the box.
I wanted to be able to make real sounding drums. I like the idea of doing it all myself, overdubbing was so easy.
I always appreciated the groove, a drummer who could play 'In the pocket' - very steady but with proper swing time. Finally people had this machine and it played a good drum groove and did it forever. They could experiment with the synthesizer part on top. It enabled people to work around the drum beat.
I showed one of my first machines to Brian Eno, it didn't sample but had sample sounds in it, the LM-1 drum computer. He said: "I'd like to have samples of trash cans and glass breaking for my drums." I'd sampled my own sounds to make these standard drum sounds because that's what everybody wanted. Then along comes Brian Eno, a real visionary. I was thinking of sampling different types of snare or bass drums, and he wanted me to put trash cans in.«
Part 8
http://www.sweetwater.com/feature/roger-linn/
I believe the MPC 60's & 3000's sequencers swing time were much funkier than the current MP's.
You are correct, I have NO scientific timing analysis to prove any differences in the MP's timing algorithms.
Pardon self for calling you a snob but you guys beat down the poor noobies all the time.
