Need Help: Timing test

Exactly! You're not concerned, cause your machine works right...
If your basslines were drifting out and sounding lame, you'd care.

Fair enough.

sequoia1232 wrote:
http://innerclocksystems.com/ has some interesting (and definitive) info on this subject.

This is one hell of a link..... Im savin up my money!

Thank you

Yeah, I'm saving for one too, this is an incredible piece, the possibilities are pretty staggering!

dont we buy hardware samplers cuz their not .0000000000005 sec precise....

I mean... sloppiness is what IM LOOKING FOR !!!! Its kinda ridiculous to me... my 3k sounds better then a software because it is sloppier.

You're wrong, do your homework...

...Sorry to be so brief, I had to jet out for a minute. Didn't mean to sound like such a jerk.

Please read the above posts. Yes, it is true that we like sloppy, off sounding stuff sometimes. That has nothing to do with this discussion.

Turning off the quantize function allows you more flexibility in where you place sounds. However, they stay where you put them right? Its sounds sloppy, but the timing is solid.

Make no mistake, the 3000s timing is tighter than your computer's! Use it for the brain of your studio and slave your other devices, including your pc, to it.

Hi all - don't want to get bogged down in the details but check my litmus page halfway down for the MPC-3000 numbers if you need proof:

http://web.webhost4life.com/innerclock/ ... ge&name=34

You can put beats anywhere you like in the 3K but they'll always playback bolted in the same spot YOU put them.

Not so with many other beatboxes and PC/MAC midi sequencers.

You put the beats in Ok, you can even quantize the hell out of them.

Do the Litmus test on what you hear for yourself - hard 16th quantise comes out like a loose rubber band - why?

Hardware and Software not keeping things bolted down.

Badly written OS running inside compromised hardware = sloppy event triggering.

They got it right in the 60 and the 3K thats for sure.

Best - David
www.innerclocksystems.com

Thanks for weighing in David! You have an awesome site. I can't wait to get my hands on one of your boxes...

thx david!

very interesting!

do you know how good/bad timing has the mpc4k?

i own both: a 60 and a 4k

cheers dread

My pleasure to be here Sequoia...)

Hi Dread - from my time on the Elektron Forum a while back - I had very reliable info/testing from a 4K owner who I trust in terms of testing and measuring and he found sequenced quarter note rim shot samples varied by a maximum of only 3 samples at 44.1kHz (0.068 milliseconds) which is equal to the MPC-3000. Have never had one to do the numbers with personally though. Like to one day......

Best all - David

thx david...

would do the test for myself but my 4k is on repair....

Hi, I haven't posted before in this forum but have been the proud owner of an MPC3000 with Vailixi 3.50 since mid last year.

Timing is an interest of mine and I came across an article last year in the Computer Music Journal from about 1990. The developer of Csound had done tests related to midi timing and his conclusion was that slight delays in timing, between 1 and 10 milliseconds in the test, created a subharmonic series.

What this means is that, although the ear may not be able to detect timing variations in a sequence (the average person cannot hear differences of 4ms), they are perceived as changes in pitch. The ear is sensitive enough to recognize that something is changing in the sequence.

Have you ever used a sampler/sequencer where you record the beat and something's not quite right? So you trim the sample start point, shift a beat here and there by a tick etc. stuff around to try and get it to sit exactly how you want but never quite get there.

The beauty of the 3000, and I believe the 60 also, is that your programmed sloppy sounding beat sounds exactly the same on each loop, therefore you don't have to stuff around trying to get it right because it stays exactly where you want it to.

Wonder how the 2000/2000xl and the newer 1000/2500 fair in this test?

beatmad wrote:
What this means is that, although the ear may not be able to detect timing variations in a sequence (the average person cannot hear differences of 4ms), they are perceived as changes in pitch. The ear is sensitive enough to recognize that something is changing in the sequence.

Hi Beatmad - the frequency change/phase offset issue when multiple sounds are overlapping while changing the relative timing position between two or more is indeed a reality and of course this is something everyone can hear. However, I must disagree strongly with your view that most people cannot hear 4ms rhythmic jitter against a tight reference. In very strict tests with no harmonic overlap (evenly spaced rim shots against 4/4 kick for example) I have witnessed first hand many people adjusting rhythmic placement of sounds using delay lines with values less than 1ms.

If people are working by ear alone in this sub-millisecond region in order to get the right feel using equipment up to the task of staying tight in the first place - 4ms is more than wide enough a gap to drive a bus through.

Sorry if this comes across as hostile - I find the notion that humans have poor rhythmic sensitivity coupled with the idea that timing perception under 5ms is psycho-acoustic just puts everyone back in the dark ages and gets us absolutely nowhere.

Regards - David
www.innerclocksystems.com

innerclock wrote:

beatmad wrote:
What this means is that, although the ear may not be able to detect timing variations in a sequence (the average person cannot hear differences of 4ms), they are perceived as changes in pitch. The ear is sensitive enough to recognize that something is changing in the sequence.

Hi Beatmad - the frequency change/phase offset issue when multiple sounds are overlapping while changing the relative timing position between two or more is indeed a reality and of course this is something everyone can hear. However, I must disagree strongly with your view that most people cannot hear 4ms rhythmic jitter against a tight reference. In very strict tests with no harmonic overlap (evenly spaced rim shots against 4/4 kick for example) I have witnessed first hand many people adjusting rhythmic placement of sounds using delay lines with values less than 1ms.

If people are working by ear alone in this sub-millisecond region in order to get the right feel using equipment up to the task of staying tight in the first place - 4ms is more than wide enough a gap to drive a bus through.

Sorry if this comes across as hostile - I find the notion that humans have poor rhythmic sensitivity coupled with the idea that timing perception under 5ms is psycho-acoustic just puts everyone back in the dark ages and gets us absolutely nowhere.

Regards - David
www.innerclocksystems.com

Without going too far into it, the study I'm referring to centered on the ability to consciously detect deviations in a sequence, not with referenced sounds. Here's a quote from the abstract:

"conscious and preconscious adjustments of tapping to rhythm variations were compared with brain cortical responses. The ISIs (interstimulus intervals ) were varied by 2% or 20% from a "central" value of 500 ms. Subjects always consciously detected the 20% ISI changes and easily adjusted their tapping accordingly, whereas they never consciously detected the 2% ISI changes, even though they always correctly adjusted their tapping to them. "

From "Conscious and preconscious adaptation to rhythmic auditory stimuli: a magnetoencephalographic study of human brain responses", F. Tecchio, C. Salustri, M. H. Thaut, P. Pasqualetti, P. M. Rossini, Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, Experimental Brain Research Volume 135, Number 2 / November, 2000

Interesting that although a 2% change was not consciously detected it still resulted in an adjustment of the tapping speed of the subjects.

I didn't express the view that most people cannot hear 4ms rhythmic jitter against a tight reference. I believe the ear is far more sensitive to phase differences and hence referenced sounds would reveal those very small differences in phase relationships.