Elektron-Users

innerclock wrote:

Cool - phew - thought for a second they had said - no way Jose.....


O, no, but who knows how the MD was programmed. It may not be possible to make the change this late in the game, or it may not be deemed important {and I daresay that if this were put to a vote, democracy would put us out on our asses right now}. Regardless, I trust them to give it due consideration. I know they put a lot of thought into the program change behavior rewrite a couple of years ago, and Daniel H was kind enough to address my complaints in a private email.

niall wrote:

innerclock wrote:

Cool - phew - thought for a second they had said - no way Jose.....


O, no, but who knows how the MD was programmed. It may not be possible to make the change this late in the game, or it may not be deemed important {and I daresay that if this were put to a vote, democracy would put us out on our asses right now}. Regardless, I trust them to give it due consideration. I know they put a lot of thought into the program change behavior rewrite a couple of years ago, and Daniel H was kind enough to address my complaints in a private email.

Yeah, that's my main concern also - a friend (who writes code/back engineers FPGA chips etc) used a great example a while back to me explaining code/hardware design - he said it's not that different to Genetic Mutations in living organisms - once the DNA is complex enough (as in humans) and all the organisms functions and chemical balances are symbiotic - any genetic modification however slight - if it involves changes and design consequences elsewhere in the system - the end result is usually a deformity or, in most cases - fatal.

This issue of timing stability in the SPS-1 may be at the limit of the code/hardware. I hope not. But I know how it goes. Still - no excuse in 2007 if you are building sequencers and rhythm machines to not take this into account before you bolt in the hardware I feel.

That being said, even if there is no fix for the SPS-1 (and it seems plenty of people are happy with it the way it is so I'm safe in the knowlege I'll get a good price for it when I do sell it!) I would still give Daniel/Elektron my cash for an SPS-2 or Mono2 that got it right in the future because I do believe they care and make great machines.

Regards - David.

PS - I'm only buying a cool new Elektron T-Shirt when my SPS-1 can stay in time!

Do you think that might be enough pressure?

Maybe the Elektron Web/Marketing/Clothing design department might push a few firm R&D buttons for us?

Did I buy my clothing from a sequencer manufacturer or a sequencer from a clothing designer?

Harsh as it may sound - less art, more substance please.

I'd rather see the Elektron Homepage showing their true wares not what they would like to see me wearing.

We shall see.

I'd like to underscore the love for Elektron, and perhaps lighten the mood for a few posts:

http://matrixsynth.blogspot.com/2007/04/elektron-easter-suprise.html

rgmccaig wrote:

ZiggY wrote:

rgmccaig wrote:
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?

No, not which hits are off... but where it changes, and it changes to a much greater degree than 2ms.





Alrighty then... so why not redo the test file so that it addresses the issue at hand, rather than a 'straw man' issue, I'm sure some of us will be happy to take the test.

We're not saying that audience members could tell _which hits_ are off, or where, we're saying that overall, the version where everything is tight will sound audibly/testably different than the version where some tracks are tight and some are not. Just a 'gut feeling' of which mix sounds rock solid as compared to not rock solid. Make sense?

As opposed to many people here, I'm perfectly willing to change my opinion based on thorough evidence, it just needs to be properly done.

Ok, I'll get together a bunch of tracks, some sample accurate some not. There will be no overlap though, I won't post the same track twice (one entirely sample accurate, one not) because it bares no relevence to a real world scenario.

Innerclock has said that if there is a sample accurate track within the clip he can identify the slop, I guess he can't despite there being an abrupt change much greater than a 2ms push/pull effect. I didn't say which tracks in the clip were sample accurate, why? because people who listen to your music have no idea what track is sample accurate or not, they have no idea what instruments were used to create what. For this thread to bare any significance it must simply be a scenario like this: A complete stranger hands you a track he made on the street and asks you if its sample accurate or not. Can you answer this accurately? Lets find out. Why do it this way? Its simple, its the only way that puts the sole emphasis on the final piece of music. There is no point scrutinizing a studio process that you can't hear or identify solely in the final context of a piece of music. There is no point in comparing a sample accurate version of a track to a sloppy version of the same track because music doesn't exist this way outside of a studio.

This is a true blind test of what you hear, not the processes you use, not the equipment you use and not a situation that is completely exclusive from the context of a completed piece of music, a complete piece of music being the sole purpose why we are here.

ZiggY wrote:

This is a true blind test of what you hear, not the processes you use, not the equipment you use and not a situation that is completely exclusive from the context of a completed piece of music, a complete piece of music being the sole purpose why we are here.

The debate is over Ziggy, tests too - the SPS-1 could be tighter - lets just see what happens and have a rest OK?

innerclock wrote:

ZiggY wrote:

This is a true blind test of what you hear, not the processes you use, not the equipment you use and not a situation that is completely exclusive from the context of a completed piece of music, a complete piece of music being the sole purpose why we are here.

The debate is over Ziggy, tests too - the SPS-1 could be tighter - lets just see what happens and have a rest OK?

pfft.

Yup, lets just see what happens with the listening tests. Of course, I don't expect you to do them... anyone expressing so much confidence in their hearing such as yourself potentially could have their ego's deflated quicker than a pin striking a balloon. So, naturally you are just going to keep running away from the idea. If the debate is so over, you won't mind participating just for shits and giggles... but of course, you won't be doing that.

On the other hand, a few people here seem very open to the idea of listening tests, I have nothing to lose, they have nothing to lose... we will simply find out well and truely if the SPS-1 NEEDS(not could) to be tighter. Again, simply because we can doesn't mean its necessary nor does it mean it will ever be noticed. If it NEEDS to be tighter is exactly what we will determine via listening tests.

innerclock wrote:
PS - I'm only buying a cool new Elektron T-Shirt when my SPS-1 can stay in time!

Do you think that might be enough pressure?

Maybe the Elektron Web/Marketing/Clothing design department might push a few firm R&D buttons for us?

Did I buy my clothing from a sequencer manufacturer or a sequencer from a clothing designer?

Harsh as it may sound - less art, more substance please.

I'd rather see the Elektron Homepage showing their true wares not what they would like to see me wearing.

We shall see.

If you keep whinging like you are, they might even throw in a diaper and rattle for free!

Indeed, less art, less ego, less arrogance, less sidestepping a rock solid conclusion, more substance to actually base the need to improve anything. Its time for listening tests, but of course you are excused... Even I consider submitting your ego to potentially ego deflating listening tests a potentially hideous thing.

Ok, I'll get together a bunch of tracks, some sample accurate some not. There will be no overlap though, I won't post the same track twice (one entirely sample accurate, one not) because it bares no relevence to a real world scenario.



No, that method is still a little flawed.

A complete stranger hands you a track he made on the street and asks you if its sample accurate or not. Can you answer this accurately? Lets find out.

Um no, how is that the reality? That would never happen in reality. The reality is actually: will people enjoy my track better if I can make it closer-to-sample-accurate. _That_ is the point.


It's pointless to test _different_ tracks, then you will be testing mainly people's preference for different compositions. This is known as a 'confound'; you must 'control' for this. You will not be able to balance out that confound unless you use a ton of different tracks and different subjects (and find a way to filter out your _own_ bias ie. choosing tracks to represent tightness that are 'better' in other ways) - i don't see that happening for this experiment.

The question we are interested in is, given the track i'm working on, will that particular track sound _noticably better_ if the timing is made tighter. Best way is two use 2 versions of the same track, then the experiment is balanced.

It's theoretically fine if you want to do a 'between subject' design: use 2 versions of each track; but for each
subject, only give them one version. Then average the numbers between subjects to find if there's a trend towards liking the tight versions better.

Problem is, you still need a lot of subjects that way, in order to cut through the randomness associated with using different subjects.

PS- in order to test the population of interest, imho you should use subjects that actually like/listen to/dance to electronic music; also you should test it on a decent 'body-rocking' system so that people can Feel the groove.

ZiggY wrote:
I didn't say which tracks in the clip were sample accurate, why? because people who listen to your music have no idea what track is sample accurate or not, they have no idea what instruments were used to create what.

And again Ziggy - sample accuracy is not important on this thread outside of testing errors and deviations - what is important in listening/real-world examples is TEMPO/STEP/DURATION/EVENT precision. The people that get this know already. You keep flipping the same old hocus pocus about hearing timing drift in a complete mix. It's a crap argument dude.

It's bloody simple - If I take two drum machines and sync them up. One machine playing hard-quantized 8th Kick/Snr pattern - the other playing hard quantised 16th hats OK - now, if I love the feel/groove of the first machine playing solo (no hats) right - now I push up the fader with the 16th hats in sync.

OK - they are in sync - Fine. BUT - they sound wobbly against the Kick/Snr and take away from the original feel.

If I pull down the 16th Hats volume - the tight feel is there as before.

Now - if I record these two machines - the Kick/Snr to [L] and the 16th Hats [R] while in sync to SF8 as I have done many times and zoom in on the file - what do I find?

Very simple - the Event/space durations on the Kick/Snr pattern are very precise - no deviation more than 5 samples at 44.1 kHz across the whole 2 minute recording.

The Hi Hat 16ths in contrast move around by up to 128 samples from where they should fall.

If that were two drummers playing on stage - any member of the audience with a musical/rhythmic ear would tell you the guy playing Hats is not a patch on the guy doing Kick Snare.

This is the whole focus of this thread - the SPS-1 is the guy playing hats in this example and the rest of my band want him to take some lessons..... :-P


David.