Could it be the swing’s the same, just the tonal character of the sound coming out of the respective boxes makes for the perception that things groove differently?
Just an idea.
I loaded some 909 samples into the OT and set the swing to about 60-62 and if I closed my eyes, would swear it was a 909 groove.
Curious…
All my Elektron boxes are set to about a 60 swing, BTW
For what it’s worth, I’ve spent an hour or so now with the Octa, Tempest and Tanzbar, just building a very simple 16-step track with kicks, snares and closed hi-hats that vary on the decay (which I think is a sweet way to get a groove without actually switching between closed and open hi-hats).
Tempest and Tanzbar feel quite similar in temperament, more human to the groove - which isn’t necessarily always what you’re looking for, so there’s no value in that statement, just a way to describe what I felt.
I then took Tanzbar samples into the Octatrack and experimented with the swing, and came quite close, but not exactly there - again, using just my ear and my own vibe as a guide. There was nothing off or wrong about it, it just danced in a different way.
However, as someone else pointed out in this thread, it’s easy to be tricked by the actual values. Whereas the Tempest starts to go disco around 54%, the Octatrack remains pretty Kraftwerkian around those numbers and you have to reach closer to the 60% mark (I stayed at 58%) to get something similar. But around there, they’re pretty close. I mean they should be, the Octatrack can certainly swing as it is.
Where the difference becomes noticeable, is when you start to add parts together. Drums is one thing, but when you add more complexity to it, that’s when you push it. I threw in a base and a simple arpeggio in the Tempest as well. Feeding the Octa with similar sounds, the difference became greater. Doing the same with the Tanzbar’s basic synth features generated the same results.
So there’s something going on inside those boxes that doesn’t come as natural to the Octatrack. What we call swing might perhaps be identical in these machines. But then there’s something else beyond that, that doesn’t go into the swing algorithm but that still affects the groove, if it’s workflow, sound, even the difference between oscillator voices and samples, I don’t know - but it’s more to this than Linn’s formula for sure.
Another thing to keep in mind is that there can be a distinct difference between triggering drum sounds on an (analogue) drum machine versus triggering samples of those same drum sounds.
On most drum machines, multiple triggers of the same sound aren’t going to sound exactly identical, especially not if the next trigger for the same sound is played before the previous one has gone silent.
The 808 BD is a famous example of this. Even though the 808 has a simple sequencer with a tight and straight timing, the variation in sound when you put multiple triggers close together with a medium or long decay, results in a pretty organic groove.
Now do the same on a sampler using the same pattern (without any swing of velocity variation), and you’ll get that “machine gun” effect.
I think this is what people refer to when they talk about the “groove” of a 606 or 808; even though the sequencers in these machines are entirely straight without a swing option, the way the analog circuity is triggered still introduces a distinct variation in sound that’s related to where triggers are placed in the sequence.
I think that’s a false assumption. My RYTM’s timing sounds very precise despite being analog.
Great topic
Last week I have been looking on the web about that ‘pull and push’ laid back hiphop groove that J-dilla or Afta 1 are famous for. These are one of the most organic grooves I know. For fun I tried to get that same feel on the octatrack and I must say it did a very good job in breaking up the beat and still having it in time with great timing in sequencing akai s3200 also. OT shows its powers in more extreme values commonly used in hiphop. I use swing in a way to break down the beat totally and then play around with nudging the swing triggers and turning them on and off and so on… OT to my ears does a great job.
I think that swing is more of an individual thing that vary from person to person and not from machine to machine. I think that what concerns hardware samplers is as simple like Roger Linn described in that magazine article.
I don’t know I still think this many time discussed argue is more of an individual’s feel for groove than a failure in a machine.
J Dilla, Flying Lotus, etc. use a lot of unquantized drumming on SP303 samplers and such. The type of sequencer groove I’m talking about is very noticeable if you like to program drum rolls. The RYTM doesn’t sound as good as some of the groovier sequencers I’ve tried when it comes to this.
I think that’s a false assumption. My RYTM’s timing sounds very precise despite being analog.[/quote]
I think you’ve never owned an 808, because that post is neither false nor an assumption, just facts.
and did you see the “most” bit?
You should do a little research before making incorrect assumptions.
What the hell are you talking about?
t said "I think this is what people refer to when they talk about the “groove” of a 606 or 808; even though the sequencers in these machines are entirely straight without a swing option, the way the analog circuity is triggered still introduces a distinct variation in sound that’s related to where triggers are placed in the sequence."
I disagree with this. I think it’s false to assume the analog circuitry introduces the “distinct variation in sound that’s related to where triggers are placed in the sequence.” Case in point, the analog RYTM, the very drum machine that prompted me to reply to this thread. And now you’re going to tell me I never owned an 808?? Lol okay dude
For those interested, see page 7 of http://www.dafx14.fau.de/papers/dafx14_kurt_james_werner_a_physically_informed,_ci.pdf that even includes a nice graph of this effect.
The answer is yes - the sswing sounds different.
I can’t explain it but it grooves differently. I’ve proved this to myself by A/B ing when I had both.
But, the MIDI timing on the OT SHOULD be extremely tight as it has very nice MIDI clock specs.
Moral is - trust your ears and not what science says. When people quote science or math it is often incomplete knowledge.
Err… Without science and math you’d still be banging rocks together instead of programming grooves on electronic musical instrumental. All of these machines are made with science and math.
I’m not denying that there might be a perceptual difference in terms of “groove”; I’m just more interested in trying to understand where that difference actually comes from beyond the belief in some magical swing fairy living in your box:
Just for good measure, I brought out my Volca Beats as well, a machine frequently slammed for not having a swing feature (and rightfully so, despite its price and all that, it’s a drummer - some swing would be nice - but there we are, so anyway, and the Volca Sample has one now, so we’re all good).
Even though the VBeats set in terms of swing, it has a certain slight tint to it that makes it inherently groovy all the same. I’m wondering if its native setting is just slightly coloured towards a discreet swing. My ear certainly tells me so, as does my daughter’s feet when she bounces around in the living room as I crank up the volume (she’s four and just started dance class).
But if the Volca Beats is a 100% tight exactly on the millisecond clock calibrated machine, then that would be an interesting case in point.
And if not, if indeed there’s just a slight tint to its swing, then my ear’s not lying to me. I agree that science and math aren’t sole judges on this, but it’s interesting to blend scientific facts with that which goes beyond, the soul of electronic music or whatever we want to call it.
Anyone who knows anything about this? Has the Volca Beats some inherent swing in it, or is this also in the matrix? My matrix, as it were.
Err… you need to read my post.
No one is knocking science or math.
What I said, and I’m sure you’ll agree, is that a fact based on science in isolation from the full context of the situation, is inaccurate.
For example, the code for swing on an MPC is no great mystery, but the CPU and circuitry and inbuilt compression/gain staging of a 3000 WILL effect the same algorithm differently than say an OT.
This I actually proved, by printing stems:
And guess what? My ears were correct. They lined up differently on the grid.
Trust your ears first, not science, because science is often wrong or incomplete. In fact, I appreciate those scientists of old who used their senses to observe and the used science to prove how what the sensed was actually true.
Is that clearer for you now?
PS maybe just bring the tone down maybe? - I’m sure we’re all pretty cool people just having a light heated conversation.
Here’s a recording I just made of the same pulse sample loaded in both the MPC-1000 and the RYTM playing back a pattern of 16th notes with 60% swing. Both machines are running on their internal clock at 120BPM and were started by hand. The only editing done was some cutting at the beginning of the recording to make the first pulse in both channels line up.
The MPC-1000 is on the left channel, the RYTM is on the right channel. Maybe my ears are broken, but the timing sounds pretty much identical to me:
You can download and inspect the original wav by clicking the menu on the top-right corner of that page. You can also get the pulse sample from http://cl.ly/2X3m2A3h2P2I/pulse.wav if you’d like reproduce this. Also, here are “screenshots” of the settings used:
RYTM swings deeper (approx 182 samples) than MPC
Btw, i don’t care about swing differences of OT & MPC etc. I think that there is no magic in one-dimensional skewing of events.
Yes, I noticed that too. It’s only a 4ms difference though. This difference might be because the MPC-1000 has a resolution of 96 PPQN while the RYTM has a resolution of 384 PPQN.
My point exactly. As Roger Linn describes in that interview, the swing implementation does nothing more than delaying every other 16th note.
Furthermore with OT you can point out what notes to delay
Furthermore with OT you can point out what notes to delay[/quote]
Same on the A4/AK and the AR. Lovely feature. It’s also non-destructive, so you can easily try out different swing levels.
I suspect that most people who love the MPC swing, actually forget that usually, the sequences are played in, and that therefore, the velocities have an important impact on the overall feel. In fact, it’s possible to make a sequence groove JUST by changing velocities, and leaving its timing completely tight.
The trimming of samples also plays a major role, especially once you have a few sounds playing off each other. If your kick is really tightly trimmed, but your snare has a few milliseconds of silence before its attack, then you are, already, introducing “swing”.
Furthermore, and this is especially well known for the 808, when sounds play together, there is a certain “synergy” that creates combined transients. An 808 kick won’t sound the same on its own, and when played with a snare and cowbell (on an original 808 that is).
I imagine that the way the transients interact on an MPC may be very different than on the OT.
What I’m trying to get at is that swing is definitely not the only factor that made the MPC the groove monster that it is. It’s mostly due to the people playing it, and an infinite number of un - quantifiable variables.
As far as Elektron goes, they decidedly do not want us to use swing much. Their arps do not swing, which is absolutely ridiculous. That, in and of itself, make the OT a really dodgy machine if your music relies heavily on swing and arps.
Cheers !
