dreg wrote:
David read this please,
These are the tools I've/we've got and I/we use em, pretty simple? I won't use the old saying about blaming but I'll get close
This thread should be closed. Its only going in circles.
Mods please?I read every post and respond where possible Dreg.
The very reason these are the tools we have right now is precisely why the thread is important and possibly why the topic has had nearly 5000 views in just over a single month.
It may also be why the moderators are still leaving it open. I hope so.
The importance of timing stability is core to what we all do. If the thread gives you nightmares or causes you distress it is much simpler if you do not read it rather than seeking to gag healthy debate. The issue will still generate interest and creative discussion regardless and it may benefit you someday if you allow it space.
I feel fairly confident now nothing can be done to improve the SPS-1/UW in its current form, however, I am still a big Elektron supporter and I am certain the interest and topics raised will be of interest to them in the future.
In the end I am still a potential customer for future products and that will always be of importance to any manufacturer in any business.
It is not going in circles either - many of the hysterical outbursts by people who took personally my views as an attack on Elektron, themselves, their music and creativity in general have either calmed down enough to see rationally, grasped the concept finally or dropped off altogether because they have nothing constructive to contribute.
On the other hand there have been many posts and I have had many private messages from individuals who feel just as strongly as I do and agree that if we remain silent on these issues then we keep getting more of the same and our tools don't improve.
I'm not blaming my tools for creative frustration - I am not frustrated at all. I understand well that accepting limitation can be a good thing sometimes.
My motivation for this thread is not blame or axe-grinding for something impossible or unnecessary.
I have tools already from years gone by that honor the concept that a stable tempo/event clock was/is the foundation of sequencer design.
The importance of that concept has never changed but our equipment designers have let it slip down the priority order.
Many people feel the same as I do about this.
I'm not saying I can't make music with what we have.
What I am saying is that precisely the attitude of 'just live with what you have and stop moaning' over the last 20 years in the area of electronic music production has directly contributed to the overall slide in focus - most certainly in the area of clock/event/tempo stability.
Without debate no-one learns anything.
Without pressure, nothing changes.
In 1984 - dedicated controls for adding jitter to precision click tracks, dedicated I/O on all hardware for synchronisation and sub-millisecond drum/trigger alignment were considered an essential and expected part of making good records.
Why is it in 2007 we are happy to accept that 2.2 millisecond random clock/event/step slop in 'The World's Best Beat Box' is 'feel' and should in some strange way be seen as a feature?
Because over time we forget.
We forget what good timing in electronic music actually sounds like. We are so used to hearing software and hardware doing impressions of Linns and TR-808s that we start to believe the new stuff is just like the old stuff and any subjective difference is just nostalgia for the past.
Bullshit.
Yes of course sound quality has a role to play in this too and the electronic instrument industry has developed and nurtured ever increasing sample frequency and bit rates in its quest to make digital a convincing clone of analogue.
However, almost no effort has been made over that same period to ensure that our machines that play these sounds back to us do so with the same precision and consistency as we used to take for granted in the past.
Due to very clever marketing mostly rather than an understanding of the processes involved most consumers these days expect their DAW/Sound Card to at least record and play back at 96 kHz.
In my line of work many individuals with perfectly good ears will quietly admit to not hearing much difference between 48 kHz and 96 kHz in most listening environments and yet they all would have no problem throwing that 48 kHz sound card in the bin and insist they must always record at 96 kHz.
Think of the serious time, engineering, reasearch, money and investment globally in developing precision Word Clock Generators with ever lower jitter figures to give digital audio mixes increased clarity and depth.
Would anyone with a brain walk into the Apogee or Prism head offices and tell them all to 'just be happy with what you have and make some music guys'.
Why is that same level of mostly blind, often peer-pressure driven commitment to higher sonic fidelity not seen when discussing timing stability in sequencing hardware and software when it is at least equal in significance when making music?
Baseline sequencer tight timing is worth striving for because it makes a huge difference to what we do and unless we, as the equipment consumers, make a noise about it then it just slips off the radar even further.
If we were to follow your advice and just be happy 'with the tools we have now' - in 5 years time, who knows, maybe 8 milliseconds of random clock/tempo/step slop will be considered the perfect human groove.
I'd rather reverse that trend if we possibly can.
Regards - David
www.innerclocksystems.com
