Emu XL-7 & MP-7 User's Group

Lower PPQ sequencers can sound tighter than higher PPQ sequencers
because the lower PPQ is, in effect, quantization.  It's the same
reason that quantized stuff sounds more accurate than unquantized
stuff.  Higher PPQs are simply more accurate and capable of capturing
more musicality.

-Aaron

--- gonzinigonz <gonzini@...> wrote:

> less overhead for the software i guess... im not a programmer.
> Dont think it would mean other seq data would suffer more as a result
> 
> of the lower ppqn, again lower overhead all round.
> The earlier mpc's used a 286 proccessor (remember those?!), not sure 
> what speed it would be running at.
> Think the command stations cpu would be running a lot faster though.
> I felt with the stuff i was doing at the time using the MPC, timing 
> from PC seq and the command station that things didnt feel as tight.
> As far as im aware lower track No.s take priority so any complex drum
> 
> programming should be on the lowest tracks.
> Its got to start somewhere.
> You sound as if you've heard the timing go off?
> Ive had the release time / sample cut off on some drum sounds with 
> the XL, never really got to the bottom of it. 
> I wasnt pushing things either, very low on the voice count.
> 
> 
> 
> --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Zsolt Szab\ufffd <Zsolt.Szabo@...> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry for my ignorance but how can a lower PPQN sequencer be more
> > tight than a higher PPQN one ?
> > 
> > It would mean that in cases where many tracks are used it would
> > slip more. IMHO this is a myth.
> > Simply create 16 tracks on the MPC and put the same sound on them
> > at the exact same position. Do it the same on the Emu.
> > I'm curious at the result. I worked with all kind of MPC's before, 
> even the
> > 3000 and I must say personally I don't feel it more tight than any 
> other
> > high quality stuff, be it a software sequencer or hardware.
> > 
> > Just speculation: on the MPC I believe I always heard the same 
> beats at
> > the same timeline positions through the loops. However, I'm not
> sure
> > about my XL7. I remember Aaron's mail where he said the lower
> tracks
> > are higher priority but still ... sometimes it seems to me this is 
> not the 
> > case,
> > or my mind is playing tricks on me.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> >     Zsolt
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "gonzinigonz" <gonzini@...>
> > To: <xl7@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 3:41 AM
> > Subject: [xl7] Re: good partners for the px-7?
> > 
> > 
> > > yer the mpc2KXL is 96ppqn as well, it does keep things really 
> tight.
> > > 32nd note resolution is good enough for me :0)
> > > I will normally correct everything anyway after busking stuff in.
> > > Not come accross the alesis yet? has that got some kind of 
> sequencer
> > > then?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "djnorythm" <djnorythm@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I used to have a command station and am thinking about getting
> > > another one.
> > >>
> > >> About the timing of the command stations and mpc's.  I felt that
> > > they both had very good
> > >> timings, but they sequence in different resolutions.  They call 
> it
> > > parts per quater note.  PPQN
> > >>
> > >> The PPQN for the different sequencers are.....
> > >>
> > >> MPC 500   =   96
> > >>
> > >> Command Stations   =  384   i think.. ;)
> > >>
> > >> MPC 4000   =  960
> > >>
> > >> Alesis Fusion  =  480
> > >>
> > >> just something to think about.....
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com