Ableton! Tighten the Sequencer!

Discuss music production with Ableton Live.

Tighten up the Sequencer?

YES - needs tune up
40
52%
NO - nothing wrong
37
48%
 
Total votes: 77

mercyplease
Posts: 1003
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:22 am
Location: Sent back to hell

Post by mercyplease » Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:32 pm

tumbleDry wrote:the issue at hand does not relate to drift free external midi to software timelocked sequencing or hardware control!!

my kit list and pc configuration is beside the point. i have used many configurations over the years. (current.. evolution mk449c controller, m-audio delta44 on desktop etc etc hardware... & audigy on laptop. it does not make a difference if its wdm or asio. this puter or that. i do my testing via mouse input to grid)

yes, midi has a bad rep and i am not new. ive been making music since roland released their first groovebox mc303 then moved to pc sequencing when logic audio released dicovery version and ever since felt the loss of tight grooves.

the underrated unprofessioanl kiddy midi software sequencers like fruityloops, energyxt does smack to the beat sequencing and is bringing the groove back for "me" without having the need to move about hardware.

the page, as it is from... http://www.mpc2000xl.com/mpc_timing.htm (not me!!!)

better states my concern but only refers to hardware witout any consideration of the emualtions such as rebirth338 QUOTE*****>Think there's a difference in the versions of the MPC? Here's a note from one of the experts:

Someone wrote in repsonse to my "no one's going to tell what sequencer you are using":

> Obviously it's true that in the end result no one will be able to tell what sequencer you used, but YOU'LL certainly be able to tell while you're using it. Different sequencers do have a different feel, not so much in "sloppiness", but in how they record your playing with different "swing" settings.

Sevo replied:

There is no "swing" magic in any MPC. Timing-wise, there is no difference between the 2000 and 60/3000 other than the 60/3000 have twice the MIDI outs and hence, less likelyhood MIDI jams. All MPCs are solid 96ppqn MIDI sequencers (as tight as MIDI can be, which is not that much anyway) with a absolutely tight internal drum sequencer with zero delay between multiple simultaneous instruments. There is no particular groove magic going on in any MPC - the swing and note shift features are static, faultless and perform no more magic than their counterparts on any mid-eighties software sequencer. If you are looking for advanced shuffle and humanize functions, you'll have to switch off quantizing and play them by hand - or use a big software sequencer and suffer its sloppy MIDI timing.

Someone also said:

> This isn't too important in electronic dance music where you don't really use a swing setting at all, but for other forms - particularly R&B - it can make a huge difference to the composer. I know for a fact that my Linn 9000 has a different swing feel to any software sequencer I've used, and that's why I still use it today.

Sevo states:

The Linn 9000 has no swing magic either! If you are hearing a difference, it will be the higher mechanical precision rather than any artificial human sloppyness - humanizers are the domain of software sequencers. Or rather were - humanizers (which were the most advertized feature in the early days of Cubase and Logic) seem to be unpopular nowadays, and aren't mentioned at all in current software sequencer publicity. The Linn and MPC have realtime OSes, fully integrated sound generators, and a far, far better timing than software sequencers - even more so as the software sequencers have to pump their data through MIDI, which can't handle two events at once. But they are precise rather than magic. Try it, and plug your Linn into a harddisk recorder and count out the samples between beats - you'll see that the beats are dead on whatever grid you programmed or played rather than performing any swing of their own...

Someone also blurbed:

> I mean, if you play the same pattern using Logic to control a JP-8000 that play using an ARP sequencer to control a 2600 the listener won't care, but the composer will definitely find a difference in how they work.

Sevo's final word:

Different issue - ergonomics and conceptual models certainly shape the way you work. But that will alter the beat you write rather than its timing.

Sevo -- Sevo Stille <*****UNQUOTE

can ableton give us the OFF button for the revolutionary computerized humanized???

Re-written
I see where your coming from now but you look like your talking about feel and this is what your link is saying as well. This isnt really the same as how good lives timing is.

You may think im some sort of luddite when it comes to Live and nothing could be further from the truth. One major thing that pisses me off with live is the lack of control over the feel of my midi. Live has no groove quantise and while there may be work-arounds they are not the same as proper groove quantise. This is an area Live seriously lacks in.

I may also be able to agree with you that something like FL has a certain feel. I have only used it a little but I do remember linking it to a 303 on sync. Tight but immensley groovy. With Live I cant put my finger on it but the feel is 2 dimensional a bit lifeless-robotic. This could be imagined I dont know for sure but it is very tight and rigid.

This discussion was not about feel (but thats is what you rpost heading should haev said) . If thats what you want please add your name to groove Q on in the requests forum. Not that feel isnt a good discussion, I wish this whole thread was about that rather than lives imagined crappy timing.
Last edited by mercyplease on Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
HA HA HA :twisted:

mercyplease
Posts: 1003
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:22 am
Location: Sent back to hell

Post by mercyplease » Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:46 pm

knotkranky wrote:
forge wrote:sorry - you did say when it interfaces with computers - I guess what I meant was - as soon as a MIDI cable is involved somewhere the can of worms opens
pt, logic, and steinberg use it too.

MTS (MIDI Time Stamping)
An abbreviation that stands for many different things, but the one that concerns us is the newly coined term from Mark of the Unicorn. MTS is their technology known as MIDI Time Stamping, which allows MIDI tracks to be recorded and played back with an extremely high degree of timing accuracy. MIDI Time Stamping has been a part of all MOTU USB MIDI interfaces and is officially being deployed (activated) with the release of Digital Performer version 2.61. It is a method of coding MIDI data that passes through a MOTU MIDI interface with specific timing information. Once each piece of MIDI data is time stamped the software can control it with an extremely high degree of accuracy, and (this is the important part) play it back with that degree of accuracy. The key to MTS is that MIDI playback is no longer computer clock dependent. For playback, the time stamped event is pre-transmitted to the USB interface from DP, and the MOTU USB interface handles the transmission of those events to the playback MIDI modules. MOTU boasts sub-millisecond accuracy with MTS, and has changed the PPQ resolution of DP to accept values up to 10,000! Now that's a lot of pulses per quarter note.
You talk about MTS as if it were some new thing. Its been on the go for at least four years!!. MTS isnt all its cracked up to be either. While the software can stamp the midi time on the way out theres no guarantee your Roland JV1080 is going to fire the note back at exactly that time.

Why cant you understand that midi delay is inherent in all hardware and some of them are really bad for it. An Emu morpheus is an example of a 16 part multitimbral module that freaks out if you play more than eigght notes. Forget sequencing up three parts with any degree of accuracy.
HA HA HA :twisted:

mercyplease
Posts: 1003
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:22 am
Location: Sent back to hell

Post by mercyplease » Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:50 pm

knotkranky wrote:
FaX-01 wrote:
knotkranky wrote:Thank you ruprecht, it's nice to read a professional and relevant post on this.


Half the thread pollsters want tighter midi. Wanna bet that those are mostly experienced users?



Wanna bet they aren't .......
Yes equally as stupid a generalisation.
Considering I've worked with everything from Pro24 on Atari , to MMT8's to QX21's to yamaha QY + RM1X/RS7000 hardware based sequencers and the Akai ASQ10 over the years.
I stand by my comments.
I don't use external midi gear anymore.
That said Live is perfectly fine for midi duties from my experience and as I stated way back excells at lower tempo based work without sounding jilted and hideously robotic.
I had lots of trouble working working in the 65-95bpm range in particular on alot of hardware sequencing units .
They would just not groove right at those tempo's IMHO of course.

Yes a generalization, and some food for mercy. He loved it.

About 15 years ago I had an atari 1040st with Hybrid arts gold. If my memory serves me, I remember it having a sweet feel. The mpc3000 and triton had a bit of that for me too. Do you think there is some merit to 8 bit computers and the simplicity of it's math on grooves? Just curious if you have an opinion.
.

This is the only thing you have said in this thread that makes any sense.

But your point is crap because none of those sequencers are tighter than Live. Your confusing feel with rigidness. I think your just confused in general
HA HA HA :twisted:

knotkranky
Posts: 4336
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: la

Post by knotkranky » Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:29 pm

Ignore button "off"

b and m, honestly, this thread is over your heads.

Ignore button "on"

Robert Henke
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 10:38 am
Location: Berlin

Post by Robert Henke » Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:29 pm

Oh, looks like this thread needs some mild moderation.

Within Live it is theoretically possible to have all events sample accurate.
In repect to synthesis this can be a good thing, e.g. if you want to layer two percussion instrumentes and do not want them to sound different each time or
it can be a bad thing, if your piano module creates the exact same waveform
each time you hit a key which is quite artificial.
If you layer two tracks with the same Operator sound you end up with one sound two times louder if it contains no random LFO.

As soon as MIDI leaves Live there are forces beyond our control: MIDI drivers, OS issues, and the timing of the external Synth or softsynth.

I am sure we can do better here, but the question is, how much effort is it to achive a lttle bit less jitter for a specific hardare / software configuration and what else could we do at the same time.

If there is a setup which should work with better timing and the problem can be narrowed down to something we can fix, we are happy to do so, because we want a tight sequencer too.

A single MIDI note takes one millisecond. If you send twenty notes plus pitchbend etc. thru a single MIDI cable you end up with random latencies of 20 - 30 milliseconds. And as stated before, a dedicated hardware sequencer with integreated sampler can do much much better if it comes to realtime playback.
So can Live as long as you stay within Live and render the result to a file. As soon as interapplication things and especially MIDI hardware is involved you enter ther realm of random groove (TM).

Thats it. No need to kill each other here for ten milliseconds. Write a good bassline instead.

And as a sign of hope: We plan to make it easier to integrate HW synths in Live and this will also address that latency issue when it comes to playing back an external synth thru Live in realtime. But as usual at this point no promises when it will be done..

Robert / ableton

knotkranky
Posts: 4336
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: la

Post by knotkranky » Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:36 pm

Thanx, cheers.

Tarekith
Posts: 19140
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:46 pm
Contact:

Post by Tarekith » Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:38 pm

Wow, you guys argue about the weirdest things.

mercyplease
Posts: 1003
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:22 am
Location: Sent back to hell

Post by mercyplease » Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:47 pm

forge wrote: the point Knotkranky made about MTC was a good one - "tumbledry"'s posted stuff said 96ppqn was as tight as midi can get - yet MOTU are claiming a blistering 10000ppqn for their MTC technology!

so where does that leave us?

I think the ball is in the original poster's court to spell it out a bit more clearly what he is experiencing!

:D
I missed a whole page of this debate :lol:

kranks point is something we all thought four years ago. The reality has been that MTS has been a let down or its rarely talked about now. But to the Krank its brand new technology.

The original poster is talking more about feel over timing although he doesnt really know it. he mentioned the 96PPQN resolution as the highest ever. Doesnt that show the quote he is using is very old and if thats as far as his knowledge goes then hes perhaps a little out of touch.
HA HA HA :twisted:

knotkranky
Posts: 4336
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: la

Post by knotkranky » Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:47 pm

Tarekith, I can't disagree with that, though the level of resistance was unexpected. I'll tell ya though, I think I bored the hell out of myself.

mercyplease
Posts: 1003
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:22 am
Location: Sent back to hell

Post by mercyplease » Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:53 pm

knotkranky wrote:Thanx, cheers.
:lol: Thats its krank, thats your response when Robert has pretty much told you what I was saying all along.
thats just like you to completely ignore facts. I told you that internal midi from live was sample accurate BUT was a totally different story when using external gear. I have also said that different gear will have audible differing results.
I never read this on google or a book. This is from nearly twenty years of sequencing nearly every single day.
Happy googling mate. :wink:
HA HA HA :twisted:

mercyplease
Posts: 1003
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:22 am
Location: Sent back to hell

Post by mercyplease » Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:54 pm

Robert Henke wrote:Oh, looks like this thread needs some mild moderation.

Within Live it is theoretically possible to have all events sample accurate.
In repect to synthesis this can be a good thing, e.g. if you want to layer two percussion instrumentes and do not want them to sound different each time or
it can be a bad thing, if your piano module creates the exact same waveform
each time you hit a key which is quite artificial.
If you layer two tracks with the same Operator sound you end up with one sound two times louder if it contains no random LFO.

As soon as MIDI leaves Live there are forces beyond our control: MIDI drivers, OS issues, and the timing of the external Synth or softsynth.

I am sure we can do better here, but the question is, how much effort is it to achive a lttle bit less jitter for a specific hardare / software configuration and what else could we do at the same time.

If there is a setup which should work with better timing and the problem can be narrowed down to something we can fix, we are happy to do so, because we want a tight sequencer too.

A single MIDI note takes one millisecond. If you send twenty notes plus pitchbend etc. thru a single MIDI cable you end up with random latencies of 20 - 30 milliseconds. And as stated before, a dedicated hardware sequencer with integreated sampler can do much much better if it comes to realtime playback.
So can Live as long as you stay within Live and render the result to a file. As soon as interapplication things and especially MIDI hardware is involved you enter ther realm of random groove (TM).

Thats it. No need to kill each other here for ten milliseconds. Write a good bassline instead.

And as a sign of hope: We plan to make it easier to integrate HW synths in Live and this will also address that latency issue when it comes to playing back an external synth thru Live in realtime. But as usual at this point no promises when it will be done..

Robert / ableton
Cheers Robert. Mkes perfect sense to me
HA HA HA :twisted:

Robert Henke
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 10:38 am
Location: Berlin

Post by Robert Henke » Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:54 pm

oh, it still continues....
yes. better groove mamagement ( is this a good term ??? ) is also on the list of improvements. can we close the discussion now?
R.

mercyplease
Posts: 1003
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:22 am
Location: Sent back to hell

Post by mercyplease » Sun Oct 08, 2006 6:06 pm

Robert Henke wrote:oh, it still continues....
yes. better groove mamagement ( is this a good term ??? ) is also on the list of improvements. can we close the discussion now?
R.
Yes robert thats exactly what live needs and I look forward to some groove action. but why worry about closing a discussion on this subject which could now lead to something more interesting like what type of groove quantisation Live could have in the future considering you have just posted as well. If theres threads you wish to close down do the one on this page regarding pirated copies of live is a more destructive thread than this 8)
HA HA HA :twisted:

b0unce
Posts: 5379
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:16 pm

Post by b0unce » Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:30 pm

mercyplease wrote:
knotkranky wrote:Thanx, cheers.
:lol: Thats its krank, thats your response when Robert has pretty much told you what I was saying all along.
thats just like you to completely ignore facts. I told you that internal midi from live was sample accurate BUT was a totally different story when using external gear. I have also said that different gear will have audible differing results.
I never read this on google or a book. This is from nearly twenty years of sequencing nearly every single day.
Happy googling mate. :wink:
Man, I knew it would turn out like this, I knew he wouldnt concede - wouldnt provide an example of the slop he claims to perceive, and would say something like 'ya, thats what I meant to say'...especially on the midi interface tip.

And why thank robert, when mercy was saying the same thing all the time.
spreader of butter

nolus
Posts: 823
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 12:31 pm
Location: Little Blighty On The Down

Post by nolus » Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:45 pm

Pobably a bit late for this now, but I spent a lot of effort on making it so what the heck. It's intended to show the affect of MIDI IO boxes on timing.

It's a simple loop back test.
The bottom pattern is the original the others are recorded back into live via a midi loop back. notice you get between 20 and 30 mS delay on the crappy FW410. BCR is much better but still mangles some very short notes.

Remember these are very very short notes, so it's not so much the jitter that bothers me as the effect on overall latency when playing live.

I was very supprised to see delays of between 5 and 8 mS just using MIDIYoke. Of course it is impossible to say from this test how much of this delay is caused by midi yoke and how much by windows or live.

The obvious conclusion is to use the BCR midi input and forget the 410 as a midi device.

notice that with midi yoke, although there is about 2-3 ms of jitter that simultaneous events are preserved that way.

By the way, I got the 1 mS grid by setting the tempo to 117.19 and setting the grid to 1/2048.

Image

Oh and it would be interesting to kwow how much delay is created by a virtual midi cable on osx.
"That very perceptive of you Mr Stapleton, and rather unexpected... in a G Major"

Post Reply