Octatrack swing vs. MPC swing and others

t · 2014-12-14T06:44:31.000Z

This is actually one of my primary complaints about most software these days; it’s so easy to add an almost unlimited number of presets that developers end up putting a huge number of identical presets in without wondering if that’s even musically useful at all.

KOTARE · 2014-12-14T07:13:14.000Z

""Prints"":

I can’t wait for someone who’s never tried any of these drum machines to chime in and tell me it’s all in my head. I’m not even going to bother to respond.

Bingo.

h4ndcrafted · 2014-12-14T08:29:12.000Z

I was concerned about the RYTM swing, thing is, with micro timing it has made swing largely redundant to me. I used to consider swing really important on a drum machine, micro timing is much better way of getting a nice groove.

andreasroman · 2014-12-14T08:43:42.000Z

I’ve spent the better part of the weekend now building tracks in Tempest, Octatrack and Tanzbar, using drum samples from the Tanzbar in the Octa (as well as some from Vermona DRM). I’ve played some with the Volca Beats as well. All instruments perform very well. But they all have a different groove.

Bottom line - swing is a feature. That feature is part of an instrument’s groove, which consists of much more than just the swing feature.

Perhaps the swing feature as described by Linn, is an algorithm that doesn’t really make much difference from developer to developer (though I doubt it - unless they copy paste each other’s code, micro optimisation for example should make a difference). Even so, he’s just laying out the idea behind it, not the actual architecture or implementation. That would likely take hours to explain. So there has to be differences in implementation on this swing feature alone, that makes some kind of impact, detectable or not by measuring instruments but certainly by ear.

Disregarding this, for the sake of argument that maybe swing as a feature is identical on all machines, the groove on them are different. Ears and gut beat measurements by calibration, and swing is part of what makes a machine groove, but swing is not the only thing.

Velocity, timing, sample trimming, and swing of course, the musician’s own finger drumming skills, details in quantisation, the converters, just add to the list.

The point of this thread was to establish, is there a difference in the groove of different instruments? The swing feature is part of that but not the only part, and certainly not the question to answer.

So my bad for using that word, but let’s focus on the main question:

Is there a difference between how these instruments groove?

bolandross · 2014-12-14T09:06:37.000Z

This might be interesting for some of you:

[http://www.innerclocksystems.com/New%20ICS%20Litmus.html](http://www.innerclocksystems.com/New ICS Litmus.html)

XanaX · 2014-12-14T10:11:44.000Z

Hey guys, being a drum machine fanatic and owning quite a few of the classic drum machines (606/707/808/909, SP1200, MPC60, MPC3000, MPC2000, OT, Tempest, TR-8…) I’m pretty familiar with this topic so here is my input. There is definitely a unique swing feel on most drum machines. I am disregarding things such as velocity, sample truncating, analog circuitry etc… which indeed can influence the groove. But focusing purely on the swing function, there are 3 main factors that give it a specific feel:

PPQ resolution. it’s mathematical, the lower the PPQ, the more coarse the swing. the higher the PPQ, the more subtle it gets. This is why the SP-1200 (24PPQ), TR-909 (24PPQ), Linndrum (48PPQ) have this very jumpy prominent swing (which i personally love). On the other en of the spectrum, you’re DAW with it’s super high 960 PPQ will be a lot more tame when applying swing.
Jitter. as the innerclock litmus test reveals, every drum machine (or sequencer really) emits a varied amount of jitter. jitter can make or break a midi clock’s timing. You want as little as possible. This is why the early MPC’s feel tighter & groovier then the later Numark series because the jitter is very low.
Swing algo. Not every box swings the same notes, Roger Linn breaks down his algo in the attack mag interview. Generally speaking though most boxes use the same. TR-8 has a really cool feature where you can go into negative swing for a radically different swing algo…

And There you have it, that’s about it! by the way, what I would like to see on modern units (such as elektrons) is the ability to lower the PPQ to give a coarser swing… The groove templates in Ableton sort of emulate that…

clunky · 2014-12-14T12:53:50.000Z

""KOTARE"":

[quote=“Prints”]I can’t wait for someone who’s never tried any of these drum machines to chime in and tell me it’s all in my head. I’m not even going to bother to respond.

Bingo.[/quote]
there’s a drum machine named “Bingo” and i just thought it was a bears name!

got any demos?

surely prints has had one, after all 15 yrs an all, better party like its 1999…

Orwell · 2014-12-15T04:22:02.000Z

so anyone have the microtiming adjustments specs- micro timing adjustments to emulate it - to emulate a 909/808/sp1200 groove/swing on an A4 or AR

or shall we just go by ear and get a groove going?

poonti · 2014-12-15T04:38:20.000Z

""Orwell"":

so anyone have the microtiming adjustments specs- micro timing adjustments to emulate it - to emulate a 909/808/sp1200 groove/swing on an A4 or AR

or shall we just go by ear and get a groove going?

I think you;ll find option 2 much more gratifying!

t · 2014-12-15T08:20:18.000Z

""XanaX"":

PPQ resolution. it’s mathematical, the lower the PPQ, the more coarse the swing. the higher the PPQ, the more subtle it gets. This is why the SP-1200 (24PPQ), TR-909 (24PPQ), Linndrum (48PPQ) have this very jumpy prominent swing (which i personally love). On the other en of the spectrum, you’re DAW with it’s super high 960 PPQ will be a lot more tame when applying swing.

A higher resolution doesn’t make the swing itself more “tame”; you can shift those even-numbered steps just as far out with a high PPQ as you can with a low PPQ.

It is true that your control over the amount of swing applied gets coarser the lower the resolution of the sequencer which is related to the point I made earlier in this thread:

some machines will for example have a parameter response that make it much easier, or shall we say more intuitive, to dial in just the right amount of swing.

Something else to note is that most older drum machines, including the MPC apply swing as part of the quantization process which means that you can’t grab the “swing amount” knob, turn it, and hear the result of your adjustments like you can in a DAW or on any of the Elektron boxes.

andreasroman · 2014-12-15T09:29:44.000Z

So I guess it would be possible to create groove templates in the Octatrack then, with example samples included together with adjusted timing and swing amount, to get a certain feel. Most sample packs you buy for the Octa has something going there, but it would be interesting to have a batch that does just that and only that.

Then, you’ll just replace whatever sound you prefer with that swing, and start tweaking. Especially for beginners in this area, it would help to have templates for certain grooves if they just want to get a good beat going and not bother about the mechanics behind it.

This is one of the things I like about the Tanzbar. It doesn’t only just crank up the amount of swing when you select between its different shuffle options. It does micro timing adjustments as well, so you can get a different feel from different templates, depending on what you want. But you can’t tweak it, you get what you ask for, but usually that’s enough. That guy has been making drum machines for 30 years. I’m sure he’s better at implementing the technicalities behind a groove than I am, as long as I know what I want to use it for.

XanaX · 2014-12-15T13:38:23.000Z

""t"":

[quote=" XanaX"]1. PPQ resolution. it’s mathematical, the lower the PPQ, the more coarse the swing. the higher the PPQ, the more subtle it gets. This is why the SP-1200 (24PPQ), TR-909 (24PPQ), Linndrum (48PPQ) have this very jumpy prominent swing (which i personally love). On the other en of the spectrum, you’re DAW with it’s super high 960 PPQ will be a lot more tame when applying swing.

A higher resolution doesn’t make the swing itself more “tame”; you can shift those even-numbered steps just as far out with a high PPQ as you can with a low PPQ.

It is true that your control over the amount of swing applied gets coarser the lower the resolution of the sequencer which is related to the point I made earlier in this thread:
Something else to note is that most older drum machines, including the MPC apply swing as part of the quantization process which means that you can’t grab the “swing amount” knob, turn it, and hear the result of your adjustments like you can in a DAW or on any of the Elektron boxes.

[/quote]
Right I see what you mean but the point is just low PPQ machines have a coarse swing, high PPQ machines don’t by default (but of course they are technically capable of, hence groove templates).

As for MPCs… there is indeed no real-time swing knob, it’s an option inside the quantize settings. but that doesn’t really change anything as far swing results. it is to note that on Tempest the swing amount is fixed to point decimal values Roger Linn found the grooviest such as 56.3% or 62.5% within a 50 to 75% range (like on MPCs).

Prints · 2015-02-24T05:17:35.000Z

""bolandross"":

This might be interesting for some of you:

[http://www.innerclocksystems.com/New%20ICS%20Litmus.html](http://www.innerclocksystems.com/New ICS Litmus.html)

Hi everybody. I wanted to revisit this thread because I was craving a drum machine again, and even reconsidered the RYTM (after selling it less than a month ago lol). I listened to endless demos of drum machine samples, and I couldn’t help but notice the very mechanical groove of the RYTM’s sequencer I remember so well. It just sounds so obvious to me from all the demos I listened to.
But when I listened to Tempest demos, I heard that groove in the sequencer that sounded so different to me from the RYTM’s. I checked out this link again, and it really interested me. It confirms that it’s not my imagination. If you look at the number of samples between 16th notes for the RYTM it is:

5984/ 6016/ 5984/ 6016/ 5984/ 6016/ 5984/ 6016/ 5984/ 6016/ 5984/ 6016

It alternates so precisely between two values; no wonder I hear that pronounced machine-gun effect. I’ve owned every other Elektron box at one time, or another & I’ve never been put off by the groove of their sequencers like I have of the RYTM’s. For instance, I thought the A4 had a nice groove, and if you look at the number of samples between 16th notes for the A4, you’ll see less precise values:

6011/ 5987/ 6014/ 5987/ 6010/ 5985/ 6017/ 5984/ 6019/ 5982/ 6015/ 5982/ 6017/ 5985/ 6016/ 5984

Take a look at the number of samples between 16th notes for the Tempest:

6004/ 6017/ 6001/ 6000/ 6001/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6001/ 6001/ 6001/ 6003/ 5998/ 6000/ 6002/ 6003

All the demos I’ve heard of the Tempest just have this funky quality to them when I hear snare rolls and hi-hat rolls. Try listening to some, and pay particular attention to what I’m trying to describe. Ultimately, I decided to order a Tempest & this was a major factor in my decision. I’ll try to post some more once I’ve had a chance to get acquainted with it. Perhaps my experience as a former RYTM owner transitioning into a Tempest might be of interest to others finding themselves in a position similar to mine.

R7 · 2015-02-24T08:08:16.000Z

""Prints"":

[quote=“bolandross”]This might be interesting for some of you:

[http://www.innerclocksystems.com/New%20ICS%20Litmus.html](http://www.innerclocksystems.com/New ICS Litmus.html)

Hi everybody. I wanted to revisit this thread…[/quote]
That’s an interesting read, and it’s fascinating that they give much higher scores to the devices with tighter timing. The Rytm got two perfect scores and one 4 metronomes which is pretty high, and the 808 and 909 got low scores and yet they are considered to be quite groovy.

From the article:
“It is very important not to confuse random timing errors with any concept of creative groove and/or the deliberate application of ‘human’ feel. It is not feel or creative and certainly not deliberate in any sense because the timing variation is random and has nothing to do with the user at all. It is simply a combination of software and hardware not doing its job well.”

I think the idea they are trying to present is that you could program something like the Rytm to be quite funky, via microtiming and swing. Out of the gate however it is going to sound quite sterile in comparison to a box that has much more random timing.

I don’t really have a preference, and I kind of like the idea of a box that sounds like a funky dance party right from the start when you hit play but it’s nice to have the option to program a groove in if your so inclined, and get that same groove everytime.

Even better would be if there were options in the sequencer for timing variations, probability and random behavior. Then you could really get into programming a groove.

andreasroman · 2015-02-24T08:19:19.000Z

I’ve owned a RYTM. I own a Tempest. I’ve sold the RYTM. I’ve kept the Tempest.

To me, the Tempest is about the funkiest thing out there, and the Tanzbar is its disco kid brother.

Don’t know why, if yo get down to specifics, but I know this is so.

I’ve been a musician all my life. By now, I trust my ear and my feet enough to know when they’re deceptive or just plain right.

You’re gonna love your Tempest, man.

andreasroman · 2015-02-24T08:23:00.000Z

And another thing, while I’m at it -

these things shouldn’t be so complicated. It’s great that you can dig into details if you want to, such as comparing waveforms, micro timing values and so on just because you’re fascinated by it. But you shouldn’t have to, to make a decision if an instrument is groovy or not.

It either is, or it’s not. You can’t be talked into what something is or isn’t.

For a lot of people, the RYTM is plenty groovy. So it’s down to taste and preference and comparing raw evidence data is one way to find out what you want. But once you’re in the zone, you just know.

AikiGhost · 2015-02-24T09:34:24.000Z

Personally I don’t use swing or quantise on my MPC I have them left turned off and have just learned to be a good finger drummer over time. The timing is mine not the MPCs.

Orwell · 2015-02-25T12:24:27.000Z

Try a simple volca beats for amazing swing or a boss dr 110 or tr 606
Screw expensive, cheap is where it is at

ak37lover · 2015-02-25T12:54:37.000Z

Couldn’t agree more about the 606. Brilliant grooving despite no swing.

As a long time MPC60 user, now OT user, I’m convinced ‘grooviness’ is simply related to sequencer tightness, i.e. low jitter. Basically machines sound best when they behave exactly like machines!

The OT to my ears (And I’m comparing tracks I did on MPC with my new OT tunes) grooves marginally better than the MPC60 (even on straight 16ths no swing) I’m convinced it can only be the tightness factor that does this. As for swing/unquantised hits - to my mind any little microgrooves need to repeat absolutely CONSISTENTLY on each repeat for it to ‘groove’ right.

When I sync my OT/AK from MBP DAW I find they lose a tiny bit of the groovy magic (Its a very subtle difference, but I feel it in my feet!)
Would love one of those Innerclock thingies one day to resolve this 'cos DAW as master is sometimes useful for big arrangements.

The TR606 can loop all day and keep your head nodding. OT is the same.

I reckon the MPCs groovy reputation comes from the fact that through the 90’s until mid noughties it was the lowest jitter sampling drum machine available. (Roland W30 was pretty damn tight too but I can’t imagine many Hip Hop producers enjoying the whole W30 menu-diving experience!) MPC timing was no better than a TR606, TR808, TR909, but of course they weren’t samplers! MPC60 certainly shits on any DAW system I’ve ever used though - and I’m talking about very well-specced custom systems.

As for swing, well yeah the MPC60/3000 deserve their reputation for groovy swingy-ness, but I honestly think the OT matches the MPCs in this department too. I read an interview with Roger Linn where he basically dismissed the whole idea of MPCs having some magical swing algorithm, and this further convinced me that my ‘tightness’ theory is correct.

Sorry for the essay but this subject has always fascinated me. And DAW timing has always annoyed me…

LyingDalai · 2015-02-25T20:16:04.000Z

""Orwell"":

Try a simple volca beats for amazing swing

I like the Volca Beats, but the swing is still to be invented on this one
Unless you plug some swingable funky machine…
I really like the new Teenage Engineering PO-12 “Rythm”.

What I don’t understand is why on any machine the swing is a global setting, not automated…
I love playing with the swing, just on/off and a global parameter is not enough…
LFO-it, 'damn it.