Elektron-Users

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

Hah, whatever you say champ.


Yup, no one here is talking about music... You guys are a bunch of chinscratchers, not musicians. You guys like music equipment not music.



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.

*scratches head* So you are suggesting that you probably can't hear the slop, but it must be fixed because you can see it in a daw when recorded? What does beta testing have to do with anything? What does it have to do with judging a final piece of music? Why do we need numbers that pertain to a quality that you seem to suggest will never be noticed in the final context of a piece of music? How can those numbers not be left to personal interpretation when the entire reason they exist in the first place is music, and music is nothing more than personal interpretation?

The only time you will need numbers like you say is if you can actually identify that there is a problem in a piece of music aurally (because that is how we enjoy music after all) to warrant those numbers being more accurate... and oh look, the clip is back up. I guess its come to the to either put up or shut up. Again, it contains all the "problems" that you are saying need to be fixed. Indeed people hear differently and psychoacoustics play a big role in determining what we hear, thats why the clip is hosted in a way that can only be listened to, not visually seen. The joys of psychoacoustics is that no one can suggest that they are hearing something properly until you conduct blind listening tests. People can try and refute this fact, but the only way you can really identify what you are hearing is by entirely removing all other stimulus (just like when you get your ears professional tested). Claiming that you know your ears and brain so much that you aren't effected by psychoacoustics is such a halarious notion.

http://www.twin-x.com/groupdiy/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=10042&pos=0

innerclock wrote:

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.

Indeed we should do our homework first, you missed the listening test which should have been done at the absolute beginning to validate anything in this thread instead of just suggesting that because the numbers look wrong they need to be fixed despite the fact that they could definately have zero effect either way on what we hear in the final piece of music. Good thing I found that piece of missing homework that you forgot to do. No more "I know what I hear" junk, because you only sound like your are trying to convince yourself... anyone who has expressed so much confidence in what they hear like you have in this thread really wouldn't have a problem hearing the issues in this clip:

http://www.twin-x.com/groupdiy/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=10042&pos=0

I'd like to listen to your file, ziggy, even tho I believe its irrelevant to my issues. I'm on dial-up so I cant stream the audio, is there a means of downloading that file instead ?

Hi,

So let me get this straight:

Does the test file consist of two takes, one 'with slop' and one 'without'? Your description doesn't make it sound that way. It seems like you are asking us to identify _which hits_ are off.... is that right?

If we get a proper test file we can all agree on, then obviously I _do_ believe we will hear the difference; I also have had enough experience with the fact that EVERY BLINKING ELECTRONIC MUSICIAN HAS HAD EXPERIENCE WITH ADJUSTING A KNOB THIS WAY OR THAT BY ONE OR TWO MILLISECONDS AND HEARING AN AUDIBLE DIFFERENCE. That's why we're not exactly seeing this dire need to test the point.

But again, with a proper test, I believe we would hear the difference.

**********

Also, I feel I need to explain that some of us make music in the style of 'electronic music', 'electronic dance music', or 'techno', etc. Including me.

One of the features of this style is machine-like, super-tight, repetitive beats. We are in no way interested in achieving a 'humanly' sloppy sound like Jon Bonham or whatever, or a big band, or anything like that.

Many people have noticed, that such techo genres are really great for dancing, in part due to their 'inhuman' tightness. Many people have even noticed (gasp) that all this tightness gives techno a distinctive sound; in other words the tightness has a profound effect on the perception of this music style.

We bought this high tech 'drum machine' (emphasis on machine) to make machine-like music, with 'super tight' timing as touted by a company called 'Elektron'.

So, if you don't like EDM, don't like super-tight machine beats, etc etc..... Your opinion as a target user must be down-weighted by the fact that really, you're not in the majority the target market.

Don't get me wrong, I play a bunch of acoustic instruments and like that style too, but I sure as hell didn't buy my machinedrum to play classical or jazz.


P.S. All this idiot-talk about 'doing homework' and 'stone ages' and all that is dragging this thread down to sh***.

innerclock wrote:
No more Pepsi Challenges either.

It took awhile for me to grok the repeated insistence on the blind test, but the idea is to prove our ears and internal timing, not the actual differences between the MD and other instruments.

So, I listened to Ziggy's MP3 and made my call. I haven't heard from him since, but I can't blame anyone for not coming back to this {Nathan, where are you?}.

Edit: Oop, Zig brought it back to this thread.

Note that I'm not comparing the MD to other instruments, as other chaps are. I hear snares coming in audibly late in some patterns, as if I had applied swing.

I like a little looseness in my music, but I'd rather put it in there, myself. I'd like Elektron to acknowledge that, though I suspect that nothing will be done about it.

ZiggY wrote:

Yup, no one here is talking about music... You guys are a bunch of chinscratchers, not musicians. You guys like music equipment not music.


I rather like my music =

...and the Elektrons are the best tools I've used to realise my musical ambitions.

*scratches head* So you are suggesting that you probably can't hear the slop, but it must be fixed because you can see it in a daw when recorded?

Actually I didn't listen to your clip at all, because it was offline.
I just tried the link again and the player doesn't seem to work on my Mac.

Anyway, I'm done trying to make you understand what we're talking about here. If you don't get it it's not my problem, and luckily you're not the one in charge of fixing this timing problem with the MD.

People - what this topic has served to prove to me without question (separate to the issue at hand but significant all the same) is that one of the fundamental reasons we have let tight event timing precision fall off the equipment/software radar over the last twenty years is because many electronic musicians seems determined to ignore and indeed refute it's fundamental significance in what we all do.

Separate to Elektron and the SPS-1 - I take this issue back to all the software and hardware made over the last 25 years that paid no importance to getting time right as a priority.

Contrasting this - I spent 12 hours in a studio last night with a room full of Moog Modular and CV/Gate Sequencers driven off properly sychnronised click tracks - and we were nudging things and making envelopes make things early and late - so it's not about 'pill popping mindless music-by-numbers techno' - and no matter what we were working on in that room - drums, melodies, bass lines - everybody in that room was smiling and we couldn't leave the gear alone - the doubters can say all the crap they like but four professional people in that room with over 75 years collective electronic music production experience agreed on one thing that made all the difference - every note, every fill, every arpeggio, every empty space, every tom, every bass note - was rock-solid where it should be - no rubber bands - no custard.

I'm angry that the hard-line Elektron Voodoo 'music is not numbers' zealots like DLX and ZiggY have sought to undermine the base validly of this thread and the issue at stake.

More than that though - there is a far bigger issue at stake here - our tools are all more sloppy than they were 25 years ago across the board. If we take Ziggy and DLX's approach to its logical conclusion [which is probably not unlike the Korg/Yamaha/Roland/Sequenntial/Akai etc. philosophy taken over the years in deciding that early discreet designed CV/Gate timing precision could be sacrificed in the name of reduced part component count, manufacturing cost, and added functionality rather than seeking to maintaining that early precision AND adding features as well] - then we may as well all start using stone tablets to write music on now - at least the numbers we carve in stone will stay still!

The very reason many of my clients cut everything up inside a PC these days is because all the hardware they can buy doesn't keep time properly. For those of you already living inside your mouse/screen this may seem over the top but I have had hundreds of people tell me Rebirth/Reason is all they ever need and then they spend 5 minutes on my TR-808 with the internal three x 5 volt triggers driving three external sequencers in step time and they never use Rebirth ever again!

I personally don't like the trend and it would be better for those of us still capable of rational thought and the love of music stood up for what we know and maintain pressure on our 'tool-makers' to give us back what they have taken away.

As much as I love vintage gear - in 2007 I should stll be able to buy a new hardware sequencer that outclasses the timing performance of something made in 1981. The SPS-1 is not cheap either as we all know. I have many people on my contact database who would happilly trade their aging MC-4B sequencers for something twice the price of a Machine Drum if it stood up to the task of nailing the event precision but they can't. Is that so hard to comprehend?

Time is not Elastic - 1 second is 1 second - it is not a variable. Never has been. Never ever will be.

Here is an idea I?ve had for a while - how about we petition a new Sequencer Specification Standard across the industry - instead of note storage, polyphony, sample rate, connectors, USB etc - all the usual stuff - have a think about it - what is a sequencer supposed to do? Play events in time. So - top of the feature/specification list in the manual/brochure:

1. Internal Step Tempo/Clock precision [+/- 0.000 BPM measured over 10 minutes]
2. Max. Internal Voice Generation to Internal Step Trigger error [+/- 0.00ms/x number of samples at 44.1 kHz]
3. Polyphony Timing Precision - Step/Tick Event Internal (not Midi) voice aliginment under maximum load - all voices on a single event tick. This is achievable if buffered correctly BTW.
4. Outgoing Midi Clock Precision.
5. Incoming Midi Clock Sync to Internal Sequencer Clock/Grid offset in samples/ms.

That would be a good start anyway.

Thoughts anyone?

Regards - David

niall wrote:

I like a little looseness in my music, but I'd rather put it in there, myself. I'd like Elektron to acknowledge that, though I suspect that nothing will be done about it.

Niall - have you heard back from Elektron?

ZiggY wrote:

anyone who has expressed so much confidence in what they hear like you have in this thread really wouldn't have a problem hearing the issues in this clip:

http://www.twin-x.com/groupdiy/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=10042&pos=0

Hi Ziggy - what am I listening to this for - it sounds like my Machine Drum - I'm assuming it is Monomachine? It sounds flat and limp to me - sure that's personal I know and I won't waste my time measuring it up in SF8 - no point because there is no tight reference in the file to compare the rest of the slop to anyway. The whole lot sounds blurry if you ask me. Like my MD - just a bit lifeless and rough round the edges. And it would sound better if the step/tempo precision was improved in whatever was driving it.

David.