Elektron-Users

innerclock wrote:
Hi - nkirchner (not sure of your first name so forgive me)



Nathan


innerclock wrote:
One question that I do have - the Storage Scope you use is obviously software


It's a independent hardware DSO. It has a USB port so dump data from the DSO to a PC.



innerclock wrote:
Again - all I can say is that I have run my testing methods and figures by many well experienced individuals today and they all agree that despite taking into account any Graphical/Sound Card/Windows/Marker/Crossing Point minor errors - the audio input test captured at 44.1 kHz with even a half-decent Firewire or USB audio capture card into a program like Sound Forge will provide a very close analysis of tempo stability of the device being tested.


I guess its going to be one of those agrees to disagree situations.

Hi again nkirchner - just had a closer look at your Scope screens - in particular - the second one showing 16th division duration: You mention that in your measurements all divisions were exactly 125ms which is indeed perfect at 120BPM and the basis for your statement that the SPS-1 is ROCK solid and the problems must be elsewhere. However - unless I am reading the Scope screen incorrectly - the reported duration between the two MD Impulse samples on the screen you posted earlier is actually 126.2ms (1.2ms or 52.9 samples out from ideal at 44.1 kHz). I've posted a zoomed screen shot along with my post. Could you please verify I am reading the Scope Screen correctly? If this is the case - would you mind checking 16 intervals if you have time and posting your new findings? If the 1.2 ms is indeed the deviation for 16ths at 120BPM based on the Scope then it follows that my findings of 2.18ms for quarter notes might not be that far off the mark after all. Regards as always - David.

Toni,

Elektron have been vocal about the tightness of their timing {I, for one, agree with them}, so it's not out of line to verify and even challenge their claims. It's not like anyone's being insulted here, and no one's feelings will be hurt.

Nathan, very cool program, thanks. Is it this? http://www.parallax.com/detail.asp?product_id=28014

Hi all - sorry - for the life of me I can't seem to stick a jpg on this post! - If your interested just zoom in on the second USB Scope shot and in the [Cursors] box third down next to the blue triangle - 126.2ms

Best and goodnight (it's 2am!) and thanks for the generous participation today. So long as we keep up some dialogue about this stuff and get a clear idea of what is and what isn't good timing then things can only improve across the board. David www.innerclocksystem.com

Hi Hageir, I'll try and post the file sometime tmrw if I get around to it - you know, on it's own it's a tough call to pick it I'll admit. I'll tell you something though - the more you surround yourself with beats and rhythms that do nail it timing wise - the more your ears do start to pick up when things are even slightly off. When I was testing the sync between SPS-1 and the 3K, I had the 3K Click sample in solo running for about 3 minutes in the background of my studio while I was doing some patching. I stopped it and re-started but solo'd the SPS-1 instead and before 2 bars had recorded I knew it wasn't up to the 3K I had been listening to even before I did any tests. I have been doing this stuff a long time now. In the early days my sequencing used to be faster and busy - 130 BPM - lots of 16ths. When you speed things up it narrows all the gear/midi/software slop so you get the illusion that things are tight. Slow things up - the slop that's been there all along opens up and you can drive a bus through it mostly! Keeping things busy fills up the holes too. I realised a while back that if you can make a track work at slower tempos with plenty of space you are doing something right. Then they really sound hot when you speed things up. You need ultra-tight clocks and tight sync to get this happening and most current workstations, sequencing hardware and software apps just don't cut it enough in my opinion - I wish they did! An experienced recording engineer told me when I was a young studio assistant in the UK that if a Mix wasn't working, backtrack and mute everything then unmute one track at a time - the instant you unmute a track and it loses the groove or it changes your listening focus then you know what you need to work on. These days I apply that principle to rhythmic programming. I get the timing as tight as I can from the first sound I record and then only add something if it adds to or complements the feel. If you have a Kick/Snare doing simple 'Boom-Tick-Boom-Boom-Tick' in your track - you really should be able to listen to just those to elements for the length of your song and not get bored. I guarantee you - if you do get bored within 8 bars - it's not the Kick or the Snare sound or the compression or the EQ or the pattern or even the repetition - it?s the timing of the sequencer that's driving it. When the timing is spot-on - even a quarter note metronome sounds funky! Hence the reason for this rave - after listening to the 3K ticking away for three minutes and swapping to the SPS-1 - within 2 bars I it became an irritation. So - yes I'll post the file but in isolation I'm not sure what it will do - maybe I should post them both!

Best regards - David
www.innerclocksystems.com

This thread seems to live..

For David:
Ok, maybe I was too straight with my opinion. Maybe I was just tiring up for all the clock and timing and syncing-issues that has been going on here for some while already (nothing to do with you). I take some of my words back, because it's obivious you have more experience on this matter (after all you build these things and I do not). Should have stated my arguments better, because I didn't want to accuse you of trying to benefit financially. I just ment, that because you build these clocking devices, you are more sensible to it (and it really might not matter so much to other people). Like people with ability to hear perfect pitch; they just rag other people about it, but it doesn't make music anymore perfect; it isn't science and anyone who thinks it is, is some way obsessed (with the pitch or other things).
I have to say it's an interesting story about 808 you tell. I'll keep that in mind.

About timing stuff:
One way of testing it out is to record same simple sequence twice and check how accurately the individual hits align. I've done this and I've never succeed to have perfect align. And yes, I'm talking about MD. I have RME hammerfall dsp soundcard, motherboard recommended by Rme and very clean win2000. Now I don't know what is causing this, but I'm tired of thinking about it and it has never prevent me of making things I want. I think it's an instrument not output of computer science or software-inside-the-box; it shouldn't even be thinked with terms of sample-rate or interrupt-drive-os. If we wouldnt have an accurate way of measuring, would we be crying about this. I mean there are lots of records were rhythm is provided by real human, not algorhythm.

Guys at Elektron must be fed up by this already. :-D Every month there comes up some an 'issue' how things are not 'perfect'. It's timing or knobs or MD doesn't do some specific thing user x wants it to do (I've done my own share of this). I can already see in my eyes how Daniel reads this thread and thinks "ohh god damn, not this shit again!" LOL :-D Now, I don't how other gear-communities work, but the elektron-one is pretty demanding and ever-hungry (which I can sort of understand because of the reputation of the Elektron gear).

Ok, I'm off to bed. Peace people, however the god damn clock works. :-D

Sorry Toni - forgot to respond to this part of your post earlier:

"Ok, there is some fluctuation (it's really no news). But you have interpreted this in wrong way. 3.5 points means something between "Ok to walk but too drunk to drive" and "Sharp enough to cut it". The truth is that it's totally safe and there is no such "timing performance issues" as you call it. Also calling this "jitter" connotates in a very negative ways, linking it to jitter conversation with the soundcards. Yes, in a way it's jitter, but from its nature it's different jitter and should be expressed more clearly.

I would correct the scale on your website. Your study is correct (I believe), but your interpretation is biased by the thing that you sell devices that exist on the same area of timing. Get your interpretation unbiased and it shows out more positive message."

When you say 'there is no such timing issues' I have to disagree strongly. The MPC-3000 is over 10 years old now and people the world over refuse to part with them. Why? 16 bit/44.1 is nothing special, 32 MB Ram is a joke these days and a very small screen with no track or note display at all. Until I was convinced by a close friend to go all out and prove a point I was skeptical. Three years ago I had ditched Mac and PC and got an Atari with Notator driving a good Akai S-5000 sampler with my SPS-1 in Sync and I was happier than I had been in years. The day the 3000 was delivered I loaded up a kit and sequenced up a basic 8th Kik/Snr/Hat pattern - no swing at all. I sold the Atari a week later. You can't describe it. You have to hear it. Other skeptics come to my studio and I can't drag them off it. Above all else - the sounds, the pads, the swing - what kills it is how it keeps time. Doesn't matter what you ask it to do - the clock is bolted down real hard. Check the numbers and you'll see what I mean. I have at least 15 drum machine/sequencers in my room and everyone even if they don't know what it is comments on it - most think its the sounds coming out of it - it's not - it's when they come out of it. I want all my gear to lock down this tight. I know if I sample an SPS-1 kit in the MPC-3K and program up identical patterns on both machines and play it to five of my clients blindfolded I know which one they will ask me to keep playing. The numbers we are talking here seem small but the proof is in the listener response and what makes a great or just an average sequencer is how tight these small numbers are.

And yes jitter is associated negatively - for good reason - 3ms drift or tempo clock jitter between steps on a sequencer made in the last 5 years is criminal in my opinion. It's not as if the technology and experience isn't there. The MPC-3K proves that hands down. Users and manufacturers have just put precision timing on the backburner instead of making it the number 1 priority above all else. Also my Litmus Test page isn't meant to come across as unbiased or have a positive slant - quite the reverse. It is pure cold fact. From a personal point of view I hate seeing the Fantom above the MD SPS-1 but the point of the page is to show where things stand with a view to doing something about it. I've spent years glossing over the pros and cons and shining a positive light on gear that didn't really deserve it. Nothing gets achieved that way. I want Elektron to tighten up my SPS-1 that I paid $2000 for and I want them to know that it is the most important thing a sequencer can do. If I hated it that much I'd sell it but I LOVE IT - it's just a bit rubberry that's all and without a bit of pressure it wont happen.

What my aim is in this thread is really to try and remove some of the voodoo/black magic timing/feel prejudices we all have. To get away from saying - '3ms here or there is nothing' or 'people can't hear things that fine' or 'every box is good in it's own way' - for each individual these may all be different priorities but my vision for electronic music making is that we start acknowledging a common core truth that timing precision in sequencing makes a fundamental difference to how music is made and appreciated.

For that to happen - we need to state very clearly - this machine exceeds the benchmark and this one doesn't. Only then will designers and manufacturers tighten up the slack which, even if you personally can't hear it in a metronome click track yourself, wouldn't it still be a better thing to have as a standard than to ignore it?

Hey Toni - thanks for the nice reply - just read it after my second rant posting - don't take my tone as hostile at all - a tad enthused is all as you can tell! I'm out too. I can help out with your RME/Tracking/Pass-Offset issue too - but another time maybe! I'm out! Peace - and note the sub-title of my Litmus Testing page - part tounge-in-cheek, part reminder to myself - 'Don't Cry - it's only the Rhythm'

Sorry - rgmccaig, your post on the TR-808 being fine and funky just the way it is - interesting point and I have mentioned this elsewhere in the thread. I've owned 5 x TR-808s over the years and my Mark I Sync Shift was deigned and built because I wanted to run my very first one with my Midi Clock gear but after Clock to Din conversion those poor 16th hats were so hopelessly late against everything else they may have well have happened yesterday! I've done a lot of testing and fiddling with the TR-808 and, in a nutshell, she's generally not the tightest puppy on the planet (they are all a little different being VCO Tempo Controlled but my current one drifts by max. 1.97ms per quarter note) - not real bad but not anywhere near as tight as say a Roland MC-4 sequencer which is close to the same vintage but tighter rhythmically by a factor of 10 times (0.18ms maximum drift between quarter notes). You say you?re glad it's not any tighter and it sounds great the way it is. There is a good reason too. In any sequencer - two critical factors determine our response to timing/feel: 1. The period/tempo clock jitter or drift between rhythmic steps which is what my testing and this thread are focused on; and 2.Step Event Polyphony Cram: there is probably a better term for this but I like it for now! Simple example - PC Sequencer driving a common 16 Part/16 Channel Sound module off a single midi port. In a song you have (a) a 6 note Piano Chord, (b) a Bass Note, (c) a Kick Drum, (d) a Hi Hat, (e) a Ride Cymble (f) a 4 note String Pad and (g) 2 x Vocal samples. All these sounds are inside the one midi module and at a particular point in the song they all happen together at precisely the same grid/tick/quantise point. This is not uncommon. Because Midi is serial - those 16 Midi events arrive one at a time and are processed one at a time by the module. Instead of a tight 'crack' on the first beat of the bar you actually get a sloppy blur/flam/fast-arpeggio. One of the evils of Midi unfortunately. In this example you might even get close to a 15 or 20 ms gap between the first and last arriving event which you would very easily hear. Remember too that most/all current all-in-one workstations suffer from this too - the sequencing data is stored as Midi internally and this Midi data is passed on to the Voice/Sound generator section inside the workstation. Same s#@t - just in one sloppy box! Some are better than others obviously. You can do lots to minimise this - keep events away from each other (hard in a 6 note piano chord I'll admit) and multiple Midi I/O ports is great but this seems to becoming more rare these days particularly on hardware. Back to the TR-808 - it doesn't suffer from this serial affliction. Each TR-808 Drum Voice can fire at exactly the same time if it receives a trigger pulse from the CPU. If all 10 voices fall on the same step in a pattern - the CPU sends out 10 triggers at the same clock interval and all 10 voice go 'Crack' on the money. No wait, no flam and no arpeggio. This is what saves the TR-808 and why people still love it so much. Back to your point - if it could be tightened up (which won't ever happen) you would love it even more because it would still have the Step-Crack quality and be tight enough to shave with too! This flip side of this also applies to new gear too. If you design a sequencer or workstation/sampler/drum machine that suffers badly from Step/Event/Cram to start with - AND - has a rubber band for a timing clock - you have a Boat Anchor.

Regards - David
www.innerclocksystems.com

Just some random obsevations.

Over the many years involved in electronic music, my ears have become more attuned to imprecise or accurate timing, through the use of seq with quantization etc.

But if I listen to and old 70's funk record they are as sloppy as, sometimes on purpose others just out.

Do I care no. Still rocks the boat

I don't think every electronic music song I like is created on an MPC 3000 and will an average tune on a one make me like it?

Not likely

Most here like Krafwerk, do a timing test on their tunes, are they 3k tight? Possibly.

When I used to work with notator/ste combo I was always shifting tracks to fix/play with the midi spread.