Higher resolution (384ppqn vs. 96ppqn) means it will more accurately capture the timing nuances of a performance. Recording at a lower PPQN or coarser quantization will shift the timing of notes to snap to the quantization grid (what I think you mean by "rattle") and will be less accurate in terms of reproducing the original performance but more accurate - "tighter" - in terms of notes lining up with the beat. Both the Command Station and MPC use a higher internal clock resolution than the MIDI standard (24ppqn) by just subdividing further down - the MPC is four times more precise than the MIDI standard, and the Command Station is four times more precise than the MPC. So theoretically you could make the CS sound as "tight" (or "rigid") as the MPC by quantizing, but there's no "384th note" (96th of a quarter note) quantization option on the CS. Even if there was it might not sound the same. Tightness also comes from how steady the timing is - a sequence with a lot of jitter will sound sloppy no matter what the PPQN. Even if you don't use external MIDI, the sound engine can only calculate one note at a time, so some lag is inevitably going to be introduced there. I wonder when we'll start seeing multi-threaded digital synths... It'd be interesting to see if anyone's ever done timing tests on the MPC like Nick Rothwell did for the Command Stations. Wouldn't be difficult at all, but I can't find mention of it online anywhere. Charles. --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Zsolt Szab� <Zsolt.Szabo@...> wrote: > > Hello Aaron and gonzinigonz, > > yes, I understand that lower PPQN is similar to quantize. > However, this would mean also that busy loops with many > tracks would exhibit larger quantize resolution as the PPQN decreases. > Following this, if I would create 16 track with the same bass drum sound > on the exact same timeline positions and trying to play it, the MPC would > have a more "rattle" sound here while on the Emu the rattle effect would be > less. > > For external MIDI stuff I'm sure this is the case. > However, for internal sounds this is true only if the internal sound engine > is > operating on the MIDI basis which I'm not absolutely sure it is the case > in both of the MPC and Emu . But I think it must be, if proper MIDI sync > is to be done ... > > Regards, > > Zsolt > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Aaron Eppolito" <synthesis77@...> > To: <xl7@yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 5:47 AM > Subject: Re: [xl7] Re: good partners for the px-7? > > > > 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� <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 > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Message
Re: good partners for the px-7?
2006-10-04 by robotchas