Question for Mr Mpc3000

If the 1000, 2000/xl, 3000 and 60 all have the same Ppqn resolution how is it that from reading a lot of posts on this forum, a lot of uses say that the 2000/xl is tighter than the 3000 and 60 and the 1000 is even tighter than the 2000/xl?

Is this a processor issue?

I've been doing a little homework on Ppqn and i read an article that stated the human brain is capable of detecting timing irregularities from approx 5ms upwards.
In the same article it also quotes that when using sequencers with a Ppqn resolution of 96, Bpm's at 120 have an approx delay time of 5.208ms rising all the way up to 15.625ms @ 40Bpm!!

The brain also finds these minute timing irregularities far more appealing and this is where i stop coz the subject of Psychoacoustics becomes introduced.

I think this is why when you hear a track that has been sequenced on an Mpc it seems to be more "Alive", far more Groovier than when sequenced on other sequencers that have very high Ppqn's, as the brain (also stated in the article) automatically discardes this high Ppqn music as something mathematical.

Sequencers that bost of Ppqn's of 480 for example have a delay time of 1.042ms @ 120Bpm rising up to 3.125ms @ 40Bpm. The brain simply can't detect these irregularities.

I hear many Pc members say that thier drums feel real and if the above quotes are true then keep your Pc's because not only are they Intuitive, Rock Solid, Great Sounding,they also have a HUMAN RYTHMIC QUALITY to them!!!

My only question is, is the question i asked at the start of this post?

Spread Peace to everyone you meet!!!

you have misunderstood a lot, there is no thing as delay as the mpc engine triggers the sounds internally not over midi. midi will cause delays as it is a serial protocol.
what you mean, is resolution of sequencers, and it is possible, that for some people 96 ppqn is not fine enough, but in most cases it is ok.
You should decide yourself, if you can live with it, before you buy such a machine.
mpc4000 has a much higher resolution than mpc2000xl, so you may gonna go for that, if it is a major issue to you....

Ah, thanks for that, cleared up a lot.
But why do some people say the newer Pc's with the same resolution (not the 4000) feel tighter, even though they have the same clock resolution??

Am i right in saying that some poeple think that the 2000/xl is tighter than the 3000 and 60?
Are they really??

just read carefully the thread:
"The Peice of **** is Already Crashing!!!!!!!"
on the second page it is well explained by mpc3000 and others...

Thanks for that, but Mpc3000 quotes that "96Ppqn was developed so that the slight timing differences cannot be detected by the human ear" but if the above figures in my recent post are correct then this is surely is true.

It seems like the 96pqn doesn't matter that much since most people quantize anyway.

That's fair enough, but if you load up a kick snare for example running on a 4/4 beat say at around 120bpm, you will hear the slight timing irregulerities.
Just don't do it for too long though or your brain will Fry!!

Then after doing this, do the same again but this time doubling the sequencers tempo and changing the record metronome to click on every 1/2 beat instead if 1/4.
In effect this doubles the Ppqn to 192 and you will just know that it's tighter!

Wouldn't that only make a difference only if your beat was recorded un-quantized?

"In the same article it also quotes that when using sequencers with a Ppqn resolution of 96, Bpm's at 120 have an approx delay time of 5.208ms rising all the way up to 15.625ms @ 40Bpm!!"

I am not familiar with that particular article, but the way you state it is not correct. It would be more correct to say that two events separated by 1 pulse in a 96 ppqn system at 120 BPM are 5.208ms apart. 120 / 60 / 4 / 96 = 5.208ms. This does not address the fact that several notes can be ON the same pulse. Midi capacity at a single baud rate of 31250 is designed to handle several events within the 5ms threshhold. It was designed that way.

MPC sequencers -> internal sampler does not operate over midi and use a separate faster bus. Given this, it is rather easy for the MPC to keep within the 5ms threshold.

"Sequencers that bost of Ppqn's of 480 for example have a delay time of 1.042ms @ 120Bpm rising up to 3.125ms @ 40Bpm. "

Most anything over 96 ppqn that uses midi is fairly useless marketing since it will effectively be quantized to the midi baud rate of 31250.

Recommended reading:
http://www.borg.com/~jglatt/tutr/seqtime.htm

Ok thanks for that.
So does that mean there is no difference at all, in timing between all the Pc's that share the same clock rate of 96Ppqn? 60, 3000,2000/xl
Just asking since i've seen so many posts that say different machines have different feels.

I think you should ask this guy at the bottom of this post whether or not 96Ppqn was designed so that the human ear could not detect the timing irregularities.

I really don't know that much, i'm just going buy what he's quoted.

+ List Help : finger:
+ List Admin: [email protected], http://www.emccta.com/~mvitek

Improving Recording Timing Nuances
==================================

This chart converts Tempos (BPMs) from 40-330 into Millisecond delays for 1
clock tick PPQN settings from 96-1024. It is useful for maximizing your
sequencers resolution PPQN settings for obtaining the best "nuance" recording
within MIDI's bandwith limitation limit, i.e. one MIDI byte takes a minimum of
(10 bits divided by 31,250 bits per second rate) .32 milliseconds to be sent.
It can be used by the more versatile computer sequencers but also for hardware
fixed PPQN sequencers such as the XPs.

Because the XP-50 and XP-80 internal sequencer resolutions are fixed at 96
PPQN, a way to get around the recording bandwith for better live "timing
nuance" recording, is to "manipulate" the tempo to "virtually" improve the
MIDI data's timing accurancy. In other words, to obtain notably improved
sequencer recording functionality at slow tempos especially, use a multiple of
the "actual" tempo to record with thereby perceptably minimizing the delay
times of note events.

For example, if recording a piece whose actual tempo is 60 BPM, to obtain
better recording PPQN resolution, use a "virtual" tempo of perhaps 240 to
minimize the delay of 1 PPQN from 10.4178ms to 2.604ms. I recommend always
trying to, since the ear can perceive timing fluctuations as small as from
5-10ms, use the chart to "compensate" for better PPQN resolutions based on
tempo.

Time for PPQNs with 1 PPQN Delay Time in Milleseconds (ms)
Tempo Beat/Sec 96 120 192 240 384 480 768 1024
40 1.500000 15.625 12.500 7.813 6.250 3.906 3.125 1.953 1.465
50 1.200000 12.500 10.000 6.250 5.000 3.125 2.500 1.563 1.172
60 1.000000 10.417 8.333 5.208 4.167 2.604 2.083 1.302 0.977
70 0.857143 8.929 7.143 4.464 3.571 2.232 1.786 1.116 0.837
80 0.750000 7.813 6.250 3.906 3.125 1.953 1.563 0.977 0.732
90 0.666667 6.944 5.556 3.472 2.778 1.736 1.389 0.868 0.651
100 0.600000 6.250 5.000 3.125 2.500 1.563 1.250 0.781 0.586
110 0.545455 5.682 4.545 2.841 2.273 1.420 1.136 0.710 0.533
120 0.500000 5.208 4.167 2.604 2.083 1.302 1.042 0.651 0.488
130 0.461538 4.808 3.846 2.404 1.923 1.202 0.962 0.601 0.451
140 0.428571 4.464 3.571 2.232 1.786 1.116 0.893 0.558 0.419
150 0.400000 4.167 3.333 2.083 1.667 1.042 0.833 0.521 0.391
160 0.375000 3.906 3.125 1.953 1.563 0.977 0.781 0.488 0.366
170 0.352941 3.676 2.941 1.838 1.471 0.919 0.735 0.460 0.345
180 0.333333 3.472 2.778 1.736 1.389 0.868 0.694 0.434 0.326
190 0.315789 3.289 2.632 1.645 1.316 0.822 0.658 0.411 0.308
200 0.300000 3.125 2.500 1.563 1.250 0.781 0.625 0.391 0.293
210 0.285714 2.976 2.381 1.488 1.190 0.744 0.595 0.372 0.279
220 0.272727 2.841 2.273 1.420 1.136 0.710 0.568 0.355 0.266
230 0.260870 2.717 2.174 1.359 1.087 0.679 0.543 0.340 0.255
240 0.250000 2.604 2.083 1.302 1.042 0.651 0.521 0.326 0.244
250 0.240000 2.500 2.000 1.250 1.000 0.625 0.500 0.313 0.234
260 0.230769 2.404 1.923 1.202 0.962 0.601 0.481 0.300 0.225
270 0.222222 2.315 1.852 1.157 0.926 0.579 0.463 0.289 0.217
280 0.214286 2.232 1.786 1.116 0.893 0.558 0.446 0.279 0.209
290 0.206897 2.155 1.724 1.078 0.862 0.539 0.431 0.269 0.202
300 0.200000 2.083 1.667 1.042 0.833 0.521 0.417 0.260 0.195
210 0.285714 2.976 2.381 1.488 1.190 0.744 0.595 0.372 0.279
320 0.187500 1.953 1.563 0.977 0.781 0.488 0.391 0.244 0.183
330 0.181818 1.894 1.515 0.947 0.758 0.473 0.379 0.237 0.178

Because the MIDI bandwith is limited to .33ms for a one byte message, but more
practically is limited to .96ms for note on messages without "intermittent"
running status, all PPQNs for tempos whose 1 PPQN is less that .33ms are NOT
possible and less than .96ms are NOT practical. Also, for "realistic"
recording, quintuplet factorable PPQNs such as 120, 240, 240, should IMHO be
avoided to prevent "false" quantization errors which I don't believe human
performances ever use! Multiples of 2 and 3 are the most "natural" and basic
prime quantizations.

Due consideration for maximum polyphonic delays should be made. Consider the
following delays REQUIRED for various simultaneous polyphony between clock
ticks:

Polyphony Notes at .96ms per NoteOn
========= ==========================
1 .96 ms
4 3.84 ms
8 7.68 ms
16 15.36 ms
32 30.72 ms
64 61.44 ms

More expressive controller and note recordings when adequate but practical
PPQNs are used to increase the efficiency of use of the sequencer's PPQN
resolution. Using for example a PPQN of 1024 at a tempo of 330 BPM causes
unnecessary CPU overheard and unrealizeable for MIDI's bandwith, since the 1
PPQN resolution is .178ms which is less than the .33ms that MIDI supports for
transmission/reception. On the otherhand, using a PPQN of 96 for a tempo of 40
BPM prevents recording/sending of any data whose timing is less than the 1
PPQN resolution of 15.625ms! Controller events especially can "suffer",
besides NoteOn event start/end times, from their recording/playback "nuance"
expressiveness.

Benjamin Tubb
[email protected]
http://www.cybertron.com/~brtubb

It really proves that 96 ppqn is all you need. The resolution is within 5ms, which is within spec of human hearing. Any higher ppqn is marketing.

No it doesn't, it proves that even with a Bpm of 120, the delay time equals 5.208ms with which i think from reading the exact same passage is within the detectable human hearing range.

Not to mention at even slower Bpms's.