Feature Request: Quantized Swing

2»

Comments

  • dmori
    dmori Member Posts: 91 Advisor
    https://community.native-instruments.com/discussion/comment/173677#Comment_173677

    Ok, maybe we read what he says in the video differently.

    For context I've worked with SMPTE and nagras and steenbecks and syncing video/film to audio for 35 years - and have been involved with all the changing tech. I am a relatively new Maschine user compared to my film/video/tv experience (although I started with a 4 track in 1989 - so I've dabbled for many years with music) - so there's so much I don't know about the MK3 and software - and am still learning. SMPTE is rock solid. What I hear in the video is that he was recording to SMPTE to see how rock solid the drum machines were. Roland was rock solid to SMPTE - no fluctuations in BPM - but MPC was different.

  • ozon
    ozon Member Posts: 1,911 Expert

    What to you mean by SMPTE is rock solid? It’s a standard developed in the late 1960s to identify individual frames in film and video, and synchronize several sources such as film projectors. It’s a relative reference and only as stable as the master source. An (analogue!) tape machine has tempo fluctuations, therefore the played back time code will have minor fluctuations.

    But more important is that the equipment chasing the sync has to continuously adjust its internal tempo, which causes larger time fluctuations especially with less elaborate (read less expensive) circuitry. And that is exactly what we can observe when playing back the recording of an MPC which was synced and recorded to tape.

    Also, an SMPTE rate with 24 frames/second is the equivalent of 1/32 triplets at 120 BPM, or 41.6ms between pulses or 12 PPQ (one eighth of the MPC’s sequencer resolution). Which is in the region of early reflections of large spaces or slap back delays and not considered overly accurate in terms of musical performance.

    Which, BTW, brings us to the question of whether a resolution of 96 PPQ (5.2ms at 120BPM) can be perceived as audible quantization. It is definitely relevant if we’re talking about audio signal phase.

    Back to the original question: The shown aspect of the „MPC groove“ most probably has distinct characteristics which differ from swing and humanization operations in several ways:

    • all sounds of a kit are affected in the same way, which means it doesn’t produce flams between e.g. kick and snare
    • the deviation is continuous like a pendulum (push and pull relative to the grid)
    • the deviation cycle depends on several factors, such as time code quantity and synchronization circuitry
    • the deviation is rarely before the grid (because the device is chasing after the master time code)

    The conclusion is that the deviation follows certain rules and is not random for each event. Therefore, humanization will not achieve the desired effect.

  • dmori
    dmori Member Posts: 91 Advisor
    edited August 2024
    https://community.native-instruments.com/discussion/comment/173703#Comment_173703

    I do agree that there is much more information in audio compared to film/video. That's why when the clapper board is in-between frames, you need to view and sync via audio time units. However, SMPTE may be a 60's tech but is still used today in film & video - and it's consistent. Anyone working in sync/score composing ultimately work in the timecode world.

    Re the video: He talks about the BPM drifting when the MPC recorded, whereas the Roland "would never really fluctuate…" If the imperfection of recording the Roland/MPC to tape was the tape and its ability/inability to keep up to speed - then the Roland would not be so consistent in their results (he even mentions it was probably the quality of the quartz crystal used in the Roland).

    Back to my original question: It was about getting that type of groove/bounce/feel directly in Maschine when recording. Many now appreciate the older gear (with its quirks and foibles) after having decades of perfection through technology, realising that it may be correct, but that doesn't necessary make it feel right. So I intially asked if technology can be used to achieve this feeling of imperfection.

    I did feel my initial question, and your following questions afterwards seemed to highlight an understanding of was I was trying to express, by the questions, you in turn asked, and the different ideas you then had.

    But it seems that we're now having a different conversation.

This discussion has been closed.
Back To Top

Categories