Originally posted by technicsplayer:
maybe off topic, but about the ppq issue:
I thought the stability of the clock was far more important than the ppq spec.
I think BOTH are important.
Originally posted by technicsplayer:
Scott's was not a valid comparison because he quantised an existing recording. The test would be to play into a 1920ppq sequencer, and then play again into a 120 ppq sequencer of equal clock stability. If the clock was good enough I don't think you would hear the difference.
Alex, A while back, a couple of friends (musicians) and I performed a similar test to the one you suggested. We recorded to both a software sequencer (Logic Audio-Mac), both (at 96ppq) and (at 960+ ppq) and compared the recordings. We noticed a substantial difference. The 960 ppq sequence captured the original playing (timing) spontaneous nuances (spark) whereas the 96 ppq version sounded quantized (flat), and somehow lacked the pizazz of the original performance.
Originally posted by technicsplayer:
PC sequencers are another thing because there you divide down from a pc clock that might not be of best stability in the first place, so have more chances of error magnification maybe, and need high ppq never to notice? Some people still say their Atari's were the most rock solid sequencer of all...
I definitely agree with you re: the Atari. I owned the Atari 1040ST, and the timing was rock solid. Ahhh .. . Those were the days . . . too bad Atari ignored the musician market and focussed on games instead.
Originally posted by technicsplayer:
If this is not the case, why have we not been talking for years about our sequencers not being capable of reproducing the exact nuances of our performances?
Well, I can't speak for others here, but I've been raising this issue for some time now (do a search on past postings). It just seemed other people here weren't that interested. In the meantime, a number of musicians in the pro music community have been complaining about just this issue for quiate a while, and now the manufacters have finally begun to listen. I just hope Technics has listened too, and will implement a MUCH HIGHER timing resolution in their KN7000.
Originally posted by technicsplayer:
I have never read any perceptual studies that the human ear can devolve down to microseconds, which is the implication if this all were to be true?
Alex: I'm not relying on scientific studies. I use MY EARS and can hear the difference. My musician friends concur (after testing/hearing for themselves).
Originally posted by technicsplayer:
Maybe this is more of a paper spec than real world issue?
Well, if this is true, then WHY are both software and hardware manufacters now steadily increasing the timing resolutions on their sequencers then? Just for laughs?
I guess this all boils down to your ears. If it doesn't matter to you, then fine. Hey, some people are happy as a clam with MP3 sound quality. But as a musician, I want a midi sequencer which can MOST accurately record & reproduce the original keyboard performance.
Scott
Previous Topic
Index
