Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [oasys-pci] Off Topic about PC ppq history...

Expand Messages
  • pawL
    I regularly set Cubase VST 5.1 to 1920 PPQN on the PC. PPQN is Pulses Per Quarter Note. That s way higher than Digital Performer s 480... and I think it s
    Message 1 of 14 , Mar 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      I regularly set Cubase VST 5.1 to 1920 PPQN on the PC. PPQN is Pulses Per
      Quarter Note. That's way higher than Digital Performer's 480... and I think
      it's way over the limit MIDI can handle on a single midi port.

      Let's say you have 1920 events in a single quarter note. Are there any
      Synth Modules out there that could handle that many notes at once?? no way!
      Although it does make timing more precise.

      I'm unclear if all those "pulses" are distributed over total number of midi
      ports or not. I have 14 ports on two interfaces, a total of 224 midi
      channels, which would leave about 8.57 pulses per channel if that was true.
      I've never used that many midi channels at once though. I'm also unaware if
      a single midi port or device can actually handle that many PPQN's at once.

      pawL



      -----Original Message-----
      From: shayme [mailto:shayme@...]
      Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 6:51 PM
      To: oasys-pci@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [oasys-pci] Off Topic about PC ppq history...


      Hi Joe,

      "The Mac was always the predominant "professional" music computer because
      Mark Of The Unicorn's Performer (not Digital Performer)
      was the only sequencing software that gave you 480 ppq resolution. The best
      you could get on a PC was 96 ppq.
      --- "Joe F" <joef1@...>


      Where did you get your information that the best ppq you could get on a PC
      was 96ppq?

      Maybe I'm missing something, but when I started with PC music in 1989,
      Cakewalk (2.0 I think) for DOS supported 120ppq--and I'm not
      sure if that was the maximum or not.

      And if it's a question of interfaces, my MOTU MidiExpress PC with SMPTE must
      have had pretty good specs back in '92 I suspect.

      Finally, I'm not sure how much more "professsional" 480 ppq is over 120
      ppq--ultimately, if you are talking about MIDI, if you have
      lots of data, the MIDI spec is the bottleneck limiter--not ppq.

      Just wanted to clarify--or get clarification,


      Shayme




      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

      Contacting Korg Technical Support

      Korg's world-wide network of Korg Distributors is ready, willing,
      and able to handle all technical support questions. For information
      on contacting their tech support departments, see the OASYS PCI FAQ:

      http://www.korg.com/oasys_pci_faq_html/oasys_pci_tech_support.htm

      This mailing list, however, is not a forum for technical support.

      Members of the Korg R&D product development team read the list, and
      enjoy participating in discussions as their schedules permit. Please
      note that these are not technical support personnel. Much as they
      like talking with people about the product, and may occasionally
      offer assistance, they unfortunately cannot answer all technical
      support questions.


      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    • Joe F
      Sorry Pawl, if you go to the beginning of the thread you ll see we were discussing a historical situation. Today s Digital Performer (with MTS over a USB
      Message 2 of 14 , Mar 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Sorry Pawl, if you go to the beginning of the thread you'll see we were
        discussing a historical situation. Today's Digital Performer (with MTS over
        a USB interface) lets you set resolution arbitrarily to some ridiculous
        value. I think it's around 28,000 ppq.

        The "ppq" we're talking about is the internal timing of the sequencer within
        the computer. This is the "grid" you would quantize to or the number of
        slots between notes.

        Although I can set it much higher, I find that 480 ppq works well for me,
        and I'm used to it after all these years so I just leave it.

        Joe F.

        On 3/1/03 4:52 AM, "pawL" wrote:

        > I regularly set Cubase VST 5.1 to 1920 PPQN on the PC. PPQN is Pulses Per
        > Quarter Note. That's way higher than Digital Performer's 480... and I think
        > it's way over the limit MIDI can handle on a single midi port.
        >
        > Let's say you have 1920 events in a single quarter note. Are there any
        > Synth Modules out there that could handle that many notes at once?? no way!
        > Although it does make timing more precise.
        >
        > I'm unclear if all those "pulses" are distributed over total number of midi
        > ports or not. I have 14 ports on two interfaces, a total of 224 midi
        > channels, which would leave about 8.57 pulses per channel if that was true.
        > I've never used that many midi channels at once though. I'm also unaware if
        > a single midi port or device can actually handle that many PPQN's at once.
        >
        > pawL
        >
        >
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: shayme [mailto:shayme@...]
        > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 6:51 PM
        > To: oasys-pci@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [oasys-pci] Off Topic about PC ppq history...
        >
        >
        > Hi Joe,
        >
        > "The Mac was always the predominant "professional" music computer because
        > Mark Of The Unicorn's Performer (not Digital Performer)
        > was the only sequencing software that gave you 480 ppq resolution. The best
        > you could get on a PC was 96 ppq.
        > --- "Joe F" <joef1@...>
        >
        >
        > Where did you get your information that the best ppq you could get on a PC
        > was 96ppq?
        >
        > Maybe I'm missing something, but when I started with PC music in 1989,
        > Cakewalk (2.0 I think) for DOS supported 120ppq--and I'm not
        > sure if that was the maximum or not.
        >
        > And if it's a question of interfaces, my MOTU MidiExpress PC with SMPTE must
        > have had pretty good specs back in '92 I suspect.
        >
        > Finally, I'm not sure how much more "professsional" 480 ppq is over 120
        > ppq--ultimately, if you are talking about MIDI, if you have
        > lots of data, the MIDI spec is the bottleneck limiter--not ppq.
        >
        > Just wanted to clarify--or get clarification,
        >
        >
        > Shayme
      • TRACE
        Uh. i have Digital Performer and its internal timing resolution is about 2 Trillion PPQ Resolution. This is always on, but what you can change is the view
        Message 3 of 14 , Mar 1, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Uh. i have Digital Performer and its internal timing resolution is about 2 Trillion PPQ Resolution. This is always on, but what you can change is the view resolution, so that editing the events will be more familiar to you, if for instance you are used to working at 480 ppq or 1920. It won't change the accuracy of how the events are recorded, only how you would see them for editing purposes.

          TRACE :)
          pawL <pawl@...> wrote:I regularly set Cubase VST 5.1 to 1920 PPQN on the PC. PPQN is Pulses Per
          Quarter Note. That's way higher than Digital Performer's 480... and I think
          it's way over the limit MIDI can handle on a single midi port.

          Let's say you have 1920 events in a single quarter note. Are there any
          Synth Modules out there that could handle that many notes at once?? no way!
          Although it does make timing more precise.

          I'm unclear if all those "pulses" are distributed over total number of midi
          ports or not. I have 14 ports on two interfaces, a total of 224 midi
          channels, which would leave about 8.57 pulses per channel if that was true.
          I've never used that many midi channels at once though. I'm also unaware if
          a single midi port or device can actually handle that many PPQN's at once.

          pawL



          -----Original Message-----
          From: shayme [mailto:shayme@...]
          Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 6:51 PM
          To: oasys-pci@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [oasys-pci] Off Topic about PC ppq history...


          Hi Joe,

          "The Mac was always the predominant "professional" music computer because
          Mark Of The Unicorn's Performer (not Digital Performer)
          was the only sequencing software that gave you 480 ppq resolution. The best
          you could get on a PC was 96 ppq.
          --- "Joe F"


          Where did you get your information that the best ppq you could get on a PC
          was 96ppq?

          Maybe I'm missing something, but when I started with PC music in 1989,
          Cakewalk (2.0 I think) for DOS supported 120ppq--and I'm not
          sure if that was the maximum or not.

          And if it's a question of interfaces, my MOTU MidiExpress PC with SMPTE must
          have had pretty good specs back in '92 I suspect.

          Finally, I'm not sure how much more "professsional" 480 ppq is over 120
          ppq--ultimately, if you are talking about MIDI, if you have
          lots of data, the MIDI spec is the bottleneck limiter--not ppq.

          Just wanted to clarify--or get clarification,


          Shayme






          *** JAMTRAX ***
          Music Production

          Long Island, New York

          http://www.mp3.com/Jamtrax




          ---------------------------------
          Do you Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • pawL
          ... within ... Exactly. Since no one listens to me, I searched the web and this is what I got: Timing Clock A status byte is created 24 times per quarter
          Message 4 of 14 , Mar 1, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Joe F. wrote:

            >The "ppq" we're talking about is the internal timing of the sequencer
            within
            >the computer. This is the "grid" you would quantize to or the number of
            >slots between notes.

            Exactly. Since no one listens to me, I searched the web and this is what I
            got:

            "Timing Clock"
            "A status byte is created 24 times per quarter note. The rate, therefore,
            varies with tempo. 24 parts per quarter note (PPQ) allows sequencers to
            accurately resolve 32nd note triplets. Professional-level sequencers will
            subdivide the Timing Clock 20 times to achieve 480 PPQ."

            - http://www.stevenestrella.com/midi/

            Parts Per Quarter Note... Pulses Per Quarter Note... PPQ... PPQN... they are
            all the same.

            The expanded technical mneumonic can be manufacturer specific, and
            apparently it varies elsewhere as well.

            Semantics... semantics... semantics.

            :-9

            pawL
          • pawL
            Yeah but can you turn your ppq DOWN to get crappy timing??? NOOO!! ... Maybe this will be like what the Decimator is to audio now, just a way to lower bit
            Message 5 of 14 , Mar 1, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Yeah but can you turn your ppq DOWN to get crappy timing??? NOOO!!

              :-9

              Maybe this will be like what the Decimator is to audio now, just a way to
              lower bit depth only via MIDI.

              Steinberg has something very similar to MTS: It's called LTB. (linear time
              base??)

              LTB offers sub-millisecond timing as well.

              PPQ is obsolete apparently.

              Now if only there was a good sequencer+interface combo for Linux.

              Best of luck to ya,

              pawL


              -----Original Message-----
              From: TRACE [mailto:montemusic_ny@...]
              Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 4:05 PM
              To: oasys-pci@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [oasys-pci] Off Topic about PC ppq history...



              Uh. i have Digital Performer and its internal timing resolution is about 2
              Trillion PPQ Resolution. This is always on, but what you can change is the
              view resolution, so that editing the events will be more familiar to you, if
              for instance you are used to working at 480 ppq or 1920. It won't change
              the accuracy of how the events are recorded, only how you would see them for
              editing purposes.

              TRACE :)
              pawL <pawl@...> wrote:I regularly set Cubase VST 5.1 to 1920 PPQN on
              the PC. PPQN is Pulses Per
              Quarter Note. That's way higher than Digital Performer's 480... and I think
              it's way over the limit MIDI can handle on a single midi port.

              Let's say you have 1920 events in a single quarter note. Are there any
              Synth Modules out there that could handle that many notes at once?? no way!
              Although it does make timing more precise.

              I'm unclear if all those "pulses" are distributed over total number of midi
              ports or not. I have 14 ports on two interfaces, a total of 224 midi
              channels, which would leave about 8.57 pulses per channel if that was true.
              I've never used that many midi channels at once though. I'm also unaware if
              a single midi port or device can actually handle that many PPQN's at once.

              pawL



              -----Original Message-----
              From: shayme [mailto:shayme@...]
              Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 6:51 PM
              To: oasys-pci@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [oasys-pci] Off Topic about PC ppq history...


              Hi Joe,

              "The Mac was always the predominant "professional" music computer because
              Mark Of The Unicorn's Performer (not Digital Performer)
              was the only sequencing software that gave you 480 ppq resolution. The best
              you could get on a PC was 96 ppq.
              --- "Joe F"


              Where did you get your information that the best ppq you could get on a PC
              was 96ppq?

              Maybe I'm missing something, but when I started with PC music in 1989,
              Cakewalk (2.0 I think) for DOS supported 120ppq--and I'm not
              sure if that was the maximum or not.

              And if it's a question of interfaces, my MOTU MidiExpress PC with SMPTE must
              have had pretty good specs back in '92 I suspect.

              Finally, I'm not sure how much more "professsional" 480 ppq is over 120
              ppq--ultimately, if you are talking about MIDI, if you have
              lots of data, the MIDI spec is the bottleneck limiter--not ppq.

              Just wanted to clarify--or get clarification,


              Shayme






              *** JAMTRAX ***
              Music Production

              Long Island, New York

              http://www.mp3.com/Jamtrax




              ---------------------------------
              Do you Yahoo!?
              Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



              * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

              Contacting Korg Technical Support

              Korg's world-wide network of Korg Distributors is ready, willing,
              and able to handle all technical support questions. For information
              on contacting their tech support departments, see the OASYS PCI FAQ:

              http://www.korg.com/oasys_pci_faq_html/oasys_pci_tech_support.htm

              This mailing list, however, is not a forum for technical support.

              Members of the Korg R&D product development team read the list, and
              enjoy participating in discussions as their schedules permit. Please
              note that these are not technical support personnel. Much as they
              like talking with people about the product, and may occasionally
              offer assistance, they unfortunately cannot answer all technical
              support questions.


              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            • Joe F
              ... This Timing Clock definition refers to what is commonly called MIDI Beat Clocks . There should be a discussion of this in your sequencer s manual. The
              Message 6 of 14 , Mar 1, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                On 3/1/03 8:55 PM, "pawL" wrote:
                > "Timing Clock"
                > "A status byte is created 24 times per quarter note. The rate, therefore,
                > varies with tempo. 24 parts per quarter note (PPQ) allows sequencers to
                > accurately resolve 32nd note triplets. Professional-level sequencers will
                > subdivide the Timing Clock 20 times to achieve 480 PPQ."
                > Parts Per Quarter Note... Pulses Per Quarter Note... PPQ... PPQN... they are
                > all the same.

                This "Timing Clock" definition refers to what is commonly called "MIDI Beat
                Clocks". There should be a discussion of this in your sequencer's manual.
                The difference is that what we're talking about is the sequencer's internal
                resolution which is not transmitted over MIDI. MIDI beat clocks *are*
                transmitted over MIDI so that different devices with their own built-in
                sequencers can run in sync with each other.

                On 3/1/03 7:05 PM, "TRACE" wrote:
                > Uh. i have Digital Performer and its internal timing resolution is about 2
                > Trillion PPQ Resolution. This is always on, but what you can change is the
                > view resolution, so that editing the events will be more familiar to you, if
                > for instance you are used to working at 480 ppq or 1920. It won't change the
                > accuracy of how the events are recorded, only how you would see them for
                > editing purposes.

                This is right. The point is you can quantize to the degree that you have the
                resolution set. If you "quantize on record" the notes fall into place on the
                grid in your sequence as you record. If you only quantize on playback, you
                still have the original notes that were captured in 2 trillion PPQ.

                Back to the original point: PC sequencers at the time I bought my first Mac
                only offered 96 PPQ. So that was like having "quantize on record" always
                turned on and set to "hard quantize" each 16th note within a range of 24
                grid spaces. That's coarse enough to make a blues shuffle sound less
                "shuffley".

                I remember seeing a test that measured the accuracy of a really good live
                drummer and it turned out that the difference between the beat sounding
                "tight", "loose", or "sloppy" is pretty small. A range of something like 25
                ticks in a scale of 480. I think the best drummers were found to be accurate
                to the beat within around 7 ticks. Feel free to correct me if I have the
                numbers wrong, but I recall it was a fairly amazing amount of precision.

                Joe F.
              • Nick Rothwell
                ... Actually, it s not a status byte, it s a realtime byte. -- nick rothwell -- composition, systems, performance -- http://www.cassiel.com
                Message 7 of 14 , Mar 2, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  > "Timing Clock"
                  > "A status byte is created 24 times per quarter note.

                  Actually, it's not a status byte, it's a realtime byte.

                  --

                  nick rothwell -- composition, systems, performance -- http://www.cassiel.com
                • mrfradd <rupertnixon@hotmail.com>
                  ... good live ... sounding ... like 25 ... accurate ... have the ... precision. ... ROTFLMAO - Ringo Starr couldn t hit a beat with 7 tick accuracy even if he
                  Message 8 of 14 , Mar 2, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > I remember seeing a test that measured the accuracy of a really
                    good live
                    > drummer and it turned out that the difference between the beat
                    sounding
                    > "tight", "loose", or "sloppy" is pretty small. A range of something
                    like 25
                    > ticks in a scale of 480. I think the best drummers were found to be
                    accurate
                    > to the beat within around 7 ticks. Feel free to correct me if I
                    have the
                    > numbers wrong, but I recall it was a fairly amazing amount of
                    precision.
                    >
                    > Joe F.


                    ROTFLMAO - Ringo Starr couldn't hit a beat with 7 tick accuracy even
                    if he had someone else playing for him.....but then as Paul McCartney
                    observed - "He's not the best drummer in the world....in fact, he's
                    not even the best drummer in the Beatles....."



                    ;))
                  • JRice
                    ... My rhythm makes Ringo s look good. I m more worried about getting within a sixteenth note of the beat I want, so that quantization won t move to the wrong
                    Message 9 of 14 , Mar 2, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      >ROTFLMAO - Ringo Starr couldn't hit a beat with 7 tick accuracy even
                      >if he had someone else playing for him.....but then as Paul McCartney
                      >observed - "He's not the best drummer in the world....in fact, he's
                      >not even the best drummer in the Beatles....."

                      My rhythm makes Ringo's look good. I'm more worried about getting
                      within a sixteenth note of the beat I want, so that quantization won't
                      move to the wrong node.

                      ;)
                    • Lenny Stearns
                      Actually, Ringo s timing is very good, according what I ve heard. I read somewhere that some of his recordings were measured against a click track and he was
                      Message 10 of 14 , Mar 5, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Actually, Ringo's timing is very good, according what I've heard. I
                        read somewhere that some of his recordings were measured against a
                        click track and he was pretty much spot on. Now, whether you like
                        his drumming is another matter. But a lot of drummers were, for
                        better or worse, influenced by him, and putting him up on a riser
                        (did you ever see the clip from the Ed Sullivan show?) was pretty
                        revolutionary for the time, when drummers were always stuck in the
                        back and forgotten.

                        Anyway, since I can't remember the source of my info, you can take it
                        with a grain or salt - or the whole shaker! :-)

                        Regards,
                        Lenny

                        >Message: 4
                        > Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 15:24:25 -0500 (EST)
                        > From: JRice <rice@...>
                        >Subject: Re: Re: Off Topic about PC ppq history...
                        >
                        >>ROTFLMAO - Ringo Starr couldn't hit a beat with 7 tick accuracy even
                        >>if he had someone else playing for him.....but then as Paul McCartney
                        >>observed - "He's not the best drummer in the world....in fact, he's
                        >>not even the best drummer in the Beatles....."
                        >
                        >My rhythm makes Ringo's look good. I'm more worried about getting
                        >within a sixteenth note of the beat I want, so that quantization won't
                        >move to the wrong node.
                        >
                        >;)

                        --
                        ==========================================================================
                        Lenny Stearns lens@...
                        Alexandria, Virginia
                        ==========================================================================
                      • Joe F
                        I can confirm reading the same thing about Ringo s timing. I also read an interview with George Martin where he stated that in all the years he spent recording
                        Message 11 of 14 , Mar 5, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I can confirm reading the same thing about Ringo's timing. I also read an
                          interview with George Martin where he stated that in all the years he spent
                          recording many takes with the Beatles, Ringo never made a single mistake.

                          Now that's impressive.

                          Another point here is that if you list all the most famous drummers you'll
                          find that the greater the fame, the less the precision.

                          But beat precision is greatly overrated as a desirable thing.

                          On 3/5/03 3:13 PM, "Lenny Stearns" wrote:
                          > Actually, Ringo's timing is very good, according what I've heard. I
                          > read somewhere that some of his recordings were measured against a
                          > click track and he was pretty much spot on. Now, whether you like
                          > his drumming is another matter. But a lot of drummers were, for
                          > better or worse, influenced by him, and putting him up on a riser
                          > (did you ever see the clip from the Ed Sullivan show?) was pretty
                          > revolutionary for the time, when drummers were always stuck in the
                          > back and forgotten.
                          >
                          > Anyway, since I can't remember the source of my info, you can take it
                          > with a grain or salt - or the whole shaker! :-)
                          >
                          > Regards,
                          > Lenny
                          >
                          >> Message: 4
                          >> Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 15:24:25 -0500 (EST)
                          >> From: JRice <rice@...>
                          >> Subject: Re: Re: Off Topic about PC ppq history...
                          >>
                          >>> ROTFLMAO - Ringo Starr couldn't hit a beat with 7 tick accuracy even
                          >>> if he had someone else playing for him.....but then as Paul McCartney
                          >>> observed - "He's not the best drummer in the world....in fact, he's
                          >>> not even the best drummer in the Beatles....."
                          >>
                          >> My rhythm makes Ringo's look good. I'm more worried about getting
                          >> within a sixteenth note of the beat I want, so that quantization won't
                          >> move to the wrong node.
                          >>
                          >> ;)
                        • mrfradd
                          ... read an ... he spent ... mistake. ... I have to admit, as an ardent beatles fan, I ve never really noticed any timing issues - I just wanted an excuse to
                          Message 12 of 14 , Mar 7, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In oasys-pci@yahoogroups.com, Joe F <joef1@m...> wrote:
                            > I can confirm reading the same thing about Ringo's timing. I also
                            read an
                            > interview with George Martin where he stated that in all the years
                            he spent
                            > recording many takes with the Beatles, Ringo never made a single
                            mistake.
                            >
                            > Now that's impressive.



                            I have to admit, as an ardent beatles fan, I've never really noticed
                            any timing issues - I just wanted an excuse to quote the quote, lol ;)


                            Still, you have to admit - midi based ppqn latency pales into
                            insignificance when compared to the invariably drunk drummers we have
                            in the UK .... ;)

                            > >> My rhythm makes Ringo's look good. I'm more worried about
                            getting
                            > >> within a sixteenth note of the beat I want, so that quantization
                            won't
                            > >> move to the wrong node.
                            > >>
                            > >> ;)


                            LMAO - tell me about it!
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.