Elektron-Users

ZiggY wrote:

innerclock wrote:

DLX wrote:
What is the lowest possible "swing" setting on the MD? Tell me.

Yup, the numbers are in... but unfortunately numbers have nothing to do with music. I assume you aren't going to post your findings for the clip for no other reason than because you have none.

Off I hope! tell me if I'm wrong...!

The numbers have everything to do with music my friend.

Ziggy's all-in-brawl slop-fest doesn't need analysis - it needs re-recording.

David.


Numbers have nothing to do with music, you only think they do because you consistantly use your eyes instead of your ears. You're a big talker for someone who is so persistant that there is a timing problem. If you actually put your money where your mouth is an identified the timing flaws in the clip in the other thread we probably would have had this wrapped up at page 5... Why does it need rerecording? Is it because you can't actually download it and analysis it with your eyes? Or is it simply because you can't identify sqwat and you are not manly enough to admit it? Have you used a MnM to know that is have similar timing to the MD?

Go on, press the swing button and tell me what the lowest possible "swing" setting is on the MD.


:-D

http://www.twin-x.com/groupdiy/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=0&pos=0

is that the link you guys are talking about ?
it seems to be down..

whats up with this lowest swing setting business ? the answer is 50%, big deal ? were you hoping he'd say 0 or something ?

the main gripe with the timing issue is getting it to play in time with other boxes, instead of layering getting flam. So what do you think it proves when you record from the md/mnm alone ? that you cant decipher the slop when you record from the MD on its own ? congrats, you've made your point - meanwhile hows about we try and improve things for the good folks trying to sync a few machines ?

is that ok ?

Ziggy and DLX both need to take a long boat and sail off the edge of the very, very flat earth they both seem to inhabit together. I hope everyone else gets as much amusement as I am from their continued debate of the bleeding obvious.

Regards - David.

b0unce wrote:
http://www.twin-x.com/groupdiy/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=0&pos=0

is that the link you guys are talking about ?
it seems to be down..

The site is down, but it will be back up shortly.

whats up with this lowest swing setting business ? the answer is 50%, big deal ? were you hoping he'd say 0 or something ?

Nope, I just find it interesting that Elektron chose a number that doesn't imply zero/nothing as the lowest possible swing setting.


the main gripe with the timing issue is getting it to play in time with other boxes, instead of layering getting flam. So what do you think it proves when you record from the md/mnm alone ? that you cant decipher the slop when you record from the MD on its own ? congrats, you've made your point - meanwhile hows about we try and improve things for the good folks trying to sync a few machines ?

is that ok ?

I've expressed the importants of scientific tests several times, and of course I followed through with this in the clip... the clip isn't simply the mnm alone. Its several tracks from the mnm recorded one at a time in addition to sample accurate reference tracks, some playing alone while others are indeed layered. I even shifted some of them to numbers much much greater than the 128samples this thread seems to be based around so it contains "slop" and flams and phasing to a much greater degree. These were intention "psuh/pull" shifts, not simply displacing an entire track by a certain number of samples. One person has already commented and didn't pick any of it. When the site is back up have a listen yourself and tell me what you here. If you can pick it, then you might have a point that things actually need to be improved.

ZiggY wrote:
whats up with this lowest swing setting business ? the answer is 50%, big deal ? were you hoping he'd say 0 or something ?

Nope, I just find it interesting that Elektron chose a number that doesn't imply zero/nothing as the lowest possible swing setting.


at a swing setting of 50%, all of the even steps are (theoretically) exactly 50% between the odd steps.

I'll have a listen to your test before commenting further,
ta ta for now,
b0unce

innerclock wrote:
Ziggy and DLX both need to take a long boat and sail off the edge of the very, very flat earth they both seem to inhabit together. I hope everyone else gets as much amusement as I am from their continued debate of the bleeding obvious.

Regards - David.


No, its bleeding obvious that you can't get past your ego and see the whole picture. Your only point is that because technology allows us to do something we must do it... just like autotune. You are convinced that anything even slightly resembling sample accurate timing will make your music better, that it will make your music more enjoyable to the listener... but like autotune its moot, its a bandaid on a severed limb, it is vastly insignificant compared to the whole picture, and the whole picture is based entirely on the compositional ideas behind the music, not the tools used to create it. Most people don't care that tracks use autotune, they aren't concentrating on the autotune. They are listening to the music, to the message, to the emotion. You think technology is a means to an end, you think that because we record music via samples per second that music must conform to these samples despite the fact that music has existed for millenia without it. It is you that is living in a flat world because it is you that thinks technology is music, that technology makes the music.

You can say I don't get whatever you like, but it is becoming immediately apparent that you just don't get music and its purpose. While you are here aruging about a "problem" that exists on a semantic level within the whole grand scheme of music, people are out their making music, listening to music, enjoying music with this "problem" having absolutely zero effect on them, and fixing this "problem" won't make any of the music more enjoyable, any better, any more passionate.

ZiggY wrote:

Nope, I just find it interesting that Elektron chose a number that doesn't imply zero/nothing as the lowest possible swing setting.



Do some homework at least before you post please:

Here is a PDF explaining why (for the past 15 years or so) zero swing is reported as 50% and perfect triplet/shuffle is reported as 66%.

http://www.elektron-users.com/modules/wfdownloads/singlefile.php?cid=1&lid=692

No brainwave on Elektron's part - just sticking to what works.

Nothing to do with the SPS-1 having a tad of built-in swing just to get you juices flowing either.

David.

ZiggY wrote:

Nope, I just find it interesting that Elektron chose a number that doesn't imply zero/nothing as the lowest possible swing setting.



that says A LOT about your experience with music production and music technology in general.

Ziggy and DLX, you guys really keep missing the point.

Nobody here is talking about music, it's all about the numbers spit out by a series of fuc**ng DSP chip inside the MD.

You NEED numbers and measurements to evaluate the "quality" of those numbers. These kind of tests DO NEED accurate measurements and can't be left to personal interpretation.

Each one has different ears and hears things in different ways.

Weren't you guys the ones talking about pshycoacoustic phenomenons?

So you should probably know that if you wanna improve a piece of code you need to know EXACTLY what's going on in there, and not limit yourself to just what YOU hear, to just what YOU think is happening inside the machine.

(I guess you've never been involved in some serious beta testing)

Your listening test, beside having been off-line for some time now, don't prove anything.

I can hear or not the slop in your recording, but if there's a slop caused by a problem in the code it's not through the use of your ears that you're gonna fix it.

You have to measure it, find a pattern in its jitter variations and someway link that figure to the interrupt structure used by the MD DSPs to understand where that lag is generated.

Furthermore, there're some other perfectly valid reasons for wanting those timing problems to be fixed, even if you can't hear them AT ALL in a MD-only context.

If you've ever edited your MD loops on a DAW you have probably noticed that they need some editing before they can be lined up to the tempo grid correctly (not for the sake of it, but considering you're using your DAW timeline as time-reference for looping you probably want your material to loop correctly).

That's pretty annoying. You're talking about making music, so you can probably understand how most people HATE having to stop their workflow to edit/fix something that shouldn't be there in the first place.

Please, answer: isn't that a good reason for wanting that bug fixed?

Same thing when syncing the MD to other sequencers. Even if I'm not able to hear the MD slop when it's playing by itself, I can definitely tell the difference in timing accuracy when the MD is playing alongside my MPC and Nord Modular.

Please, answer: isn't that a good reason for wanting that bug to be fixed?

I just remembered that someone around here tested the Korg Electribes internal timing accuracy and got better results than the MD (can somebody confirm that, please?)

I paid my MD-UW 1590 Euros. They're both drum-machines, but an ER-1 (about 5 times cheaper around here) - as far as internal timing goes - gives me better results.

Please, answer: isn't that a good reason for wanting that bug to be fixed?

Come on all you slop lovers - get with the program. Lets take it back to 1981. Have a listen - slick as. Why - tight clock.