Elektron-Users

rgmccaig wrote:

To me, the sps has such a precise, 'digital' timbre flavour, that indeed I bought it to make precise, 'robotic' sounding beats and I think that any movement towards greater precision would in fact suit it better. It would make sense to me to have the precise modern/digital drum machine as the 'master beat' of my setup, then throw in the older quirky stuff on top, to taste. The sps has such input/output/sequencing/processing capabilities that it begs to be the centre of a studio setup, and therefore it makes sense for it to have the solidest timing of anything in the setup, if possible.

Just my opinion though.

There in one single paragraph is the core issue/point to this thread in my opinion also.

regards - David

Let me chime in and see if I can get this quoting business right


rgmccaig wrote:
So, getting back on topic, here's the unresolved question, to my mind::

-An Elektron rep. stated in an email response to one member (I believe) that the timing deviations were necessary results of the DSP architecture of the system (in particular, coordinating between the 2 processors)

-An Elektron rep. posted on some other forum, later quoted in this thread, that the timing characteristics were a purposeful attempt to give the sps a timing 'special feel' as found in certain other vintage drum machines

So, those statements seems a little at odds, don't they- how can they both be true?

Never underestimate serendipity dear sir. Valves in guitar amps are one of those things... I remember fenders blackface amplifiers were highly regarded because they created a nice overdrive when the volume was cranked - the overdrive of the valves. When fender released its next series of amplifier, the ones now referred to as silverface fenders a lot of people were disappointed because fender had increased the headroom. They increased the headroom because the last series went into overdrive. A lot of other people were probably very happy that the headroom was increased and that they could get a louder clean tone. You can see that regardless of what design approach Fender took, one group of users would ultimately be left a little disappointed.

I can certianly see those two statements being true, in fact as a tinker and designer I can see those two statements infact being exactly the same thing. During the design stage when prototyping the device why couldn't the timing be an acknowledged inclusion in the design? He strings together two processors and does some tests and finds a unique timing pattern, the designer likes it so instead of redesigning the entire thing he keeps it.


Perhaps they can both be true in a sense- If they knew their design required a certain amount of jitter, they could have chosen the particular pattern of jitter to be what it is. Designing gear can be a very spontaneous and often surprising thing.


It is intriguing if they really think this pattern of jitter has musical/good qualities:: the pattern is kind of irregular- notes play dead steady for 4 or 5 beats, then one note comes off by 2ms, then back to steady.

The funny thing is that this pattern does not repeat in a bar-to-bar way. Usually when people think of 'timing groove' they think of a push-pull pattern that is aligned with the measure in a certain way. So I'm interested in learning more about how this type of randomness may be perceived as 'interesting'.

Just like the fender example above, people are indeed divided on the opinion of timing. Just as some people strive to remove any timing inaccuracies, others move in the opposite direction and strive to get away from the unnaturally tight timing often associated with electronic music. If the design sits in one of these camps, then one of those groups of users is ultimately going to be left a little disappointed.


After all, we all have the ability to push/pull notes in our DAW down to the millisecond... so there is a creative choice to be had there. If this is the secret to the magic groove, why not learn about that and use it?

So there's still plenty of mystery and room for discovery regarding 'semi-random 2ms groove' imho, which is part of what this thread is for.

I don't think this can work, as I'll point out below.


Another valid question is, assume this jitter pattern is actually purposeful, did it actually work out to a good thing? Purely subjectively, I would say there's a slight mismatch between the timbre of the machinedrum and the idea of a 'slightly off' rhythm. Those classic drum machines had more lo-fi, 'analog' sound- a good match with a slightly strange rhythm grid. For instance, I think tr-909's sound awesome, and I believe it has been measured that rhythmically they are not that tight- but the amount and nature of the not-tightness is a good fit with the aggressive, noisy, chunky sound of that machine.

I consider the MD to be lofi in an entirely different way. I formally studied music composition for quite some time which led to my complete musical perversion. I didn't even like electronic music prior to study, but now its my main point of focus. One thing I learnt was that every aesthetic in music is just as valid as the next, that includes "slop" or absolute rigidity. Whether it be high definition audio, grungey lofi analog or gritty 8 or 12bit digital. Because of this, I can certianly understand why some people are quite happy to debate that the MD really has no issue at all as far as timing.


To me, the sps has such a precise, 'digital' timbre flavour, that indeed I bought it to make precise, 'robotic' sounding beats and I think that any movement towards greater precision would in fact suit it better. It would make sense to me to have the precise modern/digital drum machine as the 'master beat' of my setup, then throw in the older quirky stuff on top, to taste. The sps has such input/output/sequencing/processing capabilities that it begs to be the centre of a studio setup, and therefore it makes sense for it to have the solidest timing of anything in the setup, if possible.

Just my opinion though.

Would you agree that this opinion is based solidly on your expectations? You thought you were buying a robotic tightly timed machine, and when you didn't get it you were ultimately left a little disappointed? You can understand that some people didn't have the same expectations as you, thus find this thread a little over the top. For them their really is no issue, not because they can't hear the MD's timing (I find that to be such a silly and narrow minded approach to the situation), but rather because unlike yourself they don't strive for absolute rigidity in their music. In fact, some of their heated replies could be for no other reason than because they strive to move away from it. Neither approach is right nor wrong, people have different expectations, people have different musical directions. Its because of this that I think discussing if the "jitter pattern is actually purposeful, does it actually work out to a good thing" will only lead to more arguments based on what peoples desires and intentions are with these products.


I am not going to answer if it is a good thing, that is a response based purely on the individual and the individual alone... its not an argument for changing the MD's design necessarily. I will however say that the definition for "music" is simply "the organisation of sound". If anyone replies keep it in mind when suggesting what might be "right" or "wrong" in musical composition... because the definition of music doesn't support any approach or opinion on this subject being incorrect.

mononic wrote:


I am not going to answer if it is a good thing, that is a response based purely on the individual and the individual alone... its not an argument for changing the MD's design necessarily. I will however say that the definition for "music" is simply "the organisation of sound". If anyone replies keep it in mind when suggesting what might be "right" or "wrong" in musical composition... because the definition of music doesn't support any approach or opinion on this subject being incorrect.

Great post and I agree with much of your substance - the critical issue now I think is this:-

A long while back - many users stated they heard track/step tonal shifts in MD patterns where no modulation or parameter locks were present.

I heard 'movement' or jitter in SPS-1 16th hi hat patterns when locked up against my MPC3000.

I tested both with Elektron verified/supported and found that the SPS-1 did move around more than the MPC-3K.

This may account for the tonal shifts reported previously.

Elektron had made much about timing stability in their manual.

I felt the random nature of the jitter/errors I (and others) could measure (and hear) was not in keeping with this philosophy.

If Midi Clock sync precision is important enough to print shouldn't the internal step/sequencer timing accuracy share the same focus?

I assumed this would be a given.

We were then told that a deliberate decision was made to create the internal random tempo/step 'blur' and that it is a feature.

If this was so deliberate why was it not printed in the manual along with the Midi Clock Sync statement?

It does not really add up because for a 'feel' or applied groove template to function at all it must be regular/repeatable per event step.

Feel is feel. Random is jitter.

I think the heat in this topic is down to those that feel timing precision is less about rigidity and more about how they wish to apply feel in their work.

I own many boxes by many manufacturers that also move around a bit and I love them in their own way for all that that do - I even like the wobble when it's against something tight but when I bought my SPS-1, what locked the deal for me was the part in the manual that stated rock solid clock sync and the point made about using it as a master sync source.

well said mononic!

innerclock wrote:

mononic wrote:


I am not going to answer if it is a good thing, that is a response based purely on the individual and the individual alone... its not an argument for changing the MD's design necessarily. I will however say that the definition for "music" is simply "the organisation of sound". If anyone replies keep it in mind when suggesting what might be "right" or "wrong" in musical composition... because the definition of music doesn't support any approach or opinion on this subject being incorrect.

Great post and I agree with much of your substance - the critical issue now I think is this:-

A long while back - many users stated they heard track/step tonal shifts in MD patterns where no modulation or parameter locks were present.

I heard 'movement' or jitter in SPS-1 16th hi hat patterns when locked up against my MPC3000.

I tested both with Elektron verified/supported and found that the SPS-1 did move around more than the MPC-3K.

This may account for the tonal shifts reported previously.

Elektron had made much about timing stability in their manual.

I felt the random nature of the jitter/errors I (and others) could measure (and hear) was not in keeping with this philosophy.

If Midi Clock sync precision is important enough to print shouldn't the internal step/sequencer timing accuracy share the same focus?

I assumed this would be a given.

We were then told that a deliberate decision was made to create the internal random tempo/step 'blur' and that it is a feature.

If this was so deliberate why was it not printed in the manual along with the Midi Clock Sync statement?

It does not really add up because for a 'feel' or applied groove template to function at all it must be regular/repeatable per event step.

Feel is feel. Random is jitter.

I think the heat in this topic is down to those that feel timing precision is less about rigidity and more about how they wish to apply feel in their work.

I own many boxes by many manufacturers that also move around a bit and I love them in their own way for all that that do - I even like the wobble when it's against something tight but when I bought my SPS-1, what locked the deal for me was the part in the manual that stated rock solid clock sync and the point made about using it as a master sync source.

Why dont you take this thread to a current Roland product site? Why did you hide your background? Why do you think your helping? Are you happy that you may affect Elektron sales?

innerclock wrote:

Great post and I agree with much of your substance - the critical issue now I think is this:-

A long while back - many users stated they heard track/step tonal shifts in MD patterns where no modulation or parameter locks were present.

I heard 'movement' or jitter in SPS-1 16th hi hat patterns when locked up against my MPC3000.

I tested both with Elektron verified/supported and found that the SPS-1 did move around more than the MPC-3K.

This may account for the tonal shifts reported previously.

Elektron had made much about timing stability in their manual.

I felt the random nature of the jitter/errors I (and others) could measure (and hear) was not in keeping with this philosophy.

If Midi Clock sync precision is important enough to print shouldn't the internal step/sequencer timing accuracy share the same focus?

I assumed this would be a given.

Its with great reluctance that I post a reply to this because it is questioning integrity more than anything else. I can understand peoples comments about this aspect of the subject having malicious connotations. Its a question of ethics more than anything else, and I am not going to point fingers.

What someone considers "precise" in music is just as subjective as what someone considers musical. Obivously people who strive for as close to sample accuracy precision are going to have a much more strict concept of what they consider to be precise, compared to perhaps a rock drummer, or a person who doesn't want ridigity in their music. To the latter, precise doesn't equate to any scientific measurement. Instead its just a concept applied in the context of a music composition. In that circumstance precision isn't what is measured as scientifically accurate but rather what is musically accurate or precise. This can have absolutely zero relationship to anything science might find.


We were then told that a deliberate decision was made to create the internal random tempo/step 'blur' and that it is a feature.

If this was so deliberate why was it not printed in the manual along with the Midi Clock Sync statement?

It does not really add up because for a 'feel' or applied groove template to function at all it must be regular/repeatable per event step.

Feel is feel. Random is jitter.

This is music... nothing "must be" anything. Do other less than precise drum machines also state in their manuals or advertisements that they have precise midi sync? I am sure they do, perhaps its more appropriate to consider this a reminder that not everything we read should be taken literally, especially when it can pertain to things that are musically subjective.

I've been sync'ing my monomachine to ableton live and for me is have been nothing but tightly synced. Thats using the MnM's clock and transport as the master. Does midi clock sync refer to the triggering of notes or the BPM of a complete setup?

People have used many aesthetics associated as being "wrong" in music, some have even become common musicial components. Take tape saturation, it removes dynamic range and introduces distortion but people like it. Take the many sounds related to vinyl records, scratching, warping, clicks and pops. Take varispeed, thats found its way into countless musical works. CD skipping and digital aliasing, grungey digital sample reduction, digital clipping have all become common aesthetics in glitch music. Why does jitter necessarily remain a negative aesthetic entirely exclusive to music? John cage spent a lifetime investigating chance and random occurances in music. He did it for no other reason than because "random" is just one of the thousands of directions "feel" can take.


I think the heat in this topic is down to those that feel timing precision is less about rigidity and more about how they wish to apply feel in their work.

I own many boxes by many manufacturers that also move around a bit and I love them in their own way for all that that do - I even like the wobble when it's against something tight but when I bought my SPS-1, what locked the deal for me was the part in the manual that stated rock solid clock sync and the point made about using it as a master sync source.

I don't know. Ive always approached music equipment differently to music composition. I believe that while compositional thought may be as distant from reality as possibly conceivable, its inevitably the equipment we use that determines what is actually feasible. For example, not many people would choose a step sequenced drum machine for pulseless ambient music. Perhaps this is yet another reason why people are so torn on this subject, those that suggest "just get on with it" are the people like myself who choose equipment and use it to the limitations it clearly outlines. Perhaps you and others are more upset with this rather than disagreeing with it because you thought the limitations of the equipment would be different to what they really are.


Just a note, I am happy to discuss elektron products, compositional ideas, even the timing of the MD. But I won't be pointing fingers, or questioning the integrity of people whom I don't know. Its not conducive to any constructive conversation, it will only lower this thread into more personal attacks (both towards Elektron, and between each other). While it appears you have good intentions with your contribution in this thread, being an employee from another company I'd suggest you perhaps do the same and try to keep this thread away from heading in a potentially malicious direction.

If anyone has an issue with the wording in the manual, send Elektron an email and tell them why you think it should be changed... it will be much more constructive and appropriate than blindly fingerpointing and questioning the ethics of unknown people, particularly when a lot of elektron customers have only have very positive experiences with them. Hell, even post a copy of the email here with the suggestion you made. From my experience Elektron staff are nothing but friendly and obliging people with outstanding service. Sending them an email suggesting that you find certian wording or sentences misleading will be much more productive in correcting any situation.

Why dont you take this thread to a current Roland product site? Why did you hide your background? Why do you think your helping? Are you happy that you may affect Elektron sales?

What do you mean? Roland???? Really???

I thought David just did his own sync box, that wasn't really related to this thread?

And yes, at least one thread on VSE questioning whether if it was smart to buy a machinedrum has popped up specifically because of this thread here...luckily I think our resident pixel artist [hageir] enthusiasm for the machine shined through the clouds of doubts [my interpretation, anyway]

my appologies if my posting in here irritates anyone, I had said way back in the early decades of this thread that I'd stay away...just popped in cause I saw this thread was getting some traffic again...and the roland thing threw me for a loop...

dreg wrote:

Why dont you take this thread to a current Roland product site? Why did you hide your background? Why do you think your helping? Are you happy that you may affect Elektron sales?

Hi Dreg, if I had an issue with a Roland product I would ask R&D directly which I do often. At the moment I don't. The reason I am here is because I am an SPS-1 owner just like you.

I did not ever hide my background. I honestly felt that the best way to keep the thread focused on the issue I had was to remain neutral because I had no comparative axe to grind either way. Once it was raised I was more than happy to share that information.

Please look at all my posts - the overall tone has always been very positive towards Elektron and I have never once offered any Roland product up as an alternative to the SPS-1 or suggested potential Elektron customers look elsewhere.

Just because I work for Roland does not mean I cannot own other product or contribute to this forum. Many other members have found it constructive and not counter-creative or anti-Elektron in the slightest. Quite the reverse in fact. I hope I have not damaged Elektron's reputation or sales. Why should this issue be any more damaging than any other forum thread that brings up issues or feature wish lists?

People buying Elektron product are smart enough to make informed purchases. No where have I ever slagged them off - quite the reverse and in many private emails and conversations over the years I have recommended them to many people regardless of who I work for - my partner's brother for one owns a Monomachine which he purchased after spending time with my SPS-1 in my company.

Please - stop using who I work for as a way to damage this thread.

David.

hyphen wrote:

What do you mean? Roland???? Really???

I thought David just did his own sync box, that wasn't really related to this thread?



Hi Hyphen - yes, really.... but, just as representing my own Sync-Shift has zero bearing on my involvement or interest in this thread [as proven and acknowledged 100% by Thunder a few pages back] neither does who I work for - again, have a close look - I have always stuck close to the point and never once compared or offered any alternative to the SPS-1 ever to anyone - well maybe the obsolete MPC-3K by Akai if any.....

Regards - David.

mononic wrote:

Just a note, I am happy to discuss elektron products, compositional ideas, even the timing of the MD. But I won't be pointing fingers, or questioning the integrity of people whom I don't know. Its not conducive to any constructive conversation, it will only lower this thread into more personal attacks (both towards Elektron, and between each other). While it appears you have good intentions with your contribution in this thread, being an employee from another company I'd suggest you perhaps do the same and try to keep this thread away from heading in a potentially malicious direction.



Hi Mononic - again I appreciate the post, if I have ever questioned integrity it only comes from wanting a straight answer to what I believe is a valid question and getting what I do feel is a slightly 'spun' response.

I never wanted this to turn malicious in the slightest.

It seems better for all concerned it seems if I cease posting and let the issue die on the vine.

Best regards and thanks to all for an enlightening journey,

David.