Hi,

I just realize a KN7000 have only 96 PPQ Midi resolution vs 1920 PPQ for a PSR-2100.

Is that mean a KN7000 is built with a old CPU from Commodore 64 ???

No, but it means that the PPQ Timing Resolution is not up to Professional standard. A Sequencer with a PPQ timing resolution of 480 PPQ or 'more', is considered in the Professional category. More PPQ is better in that a person is able to edit his work in intricate increments (eg., 480PPQ= 480 subdivisions per beat
in quarter-note time) and higher PPQ is necessary when 'chaining' devices together. Anything less than 480 PPQ is, well; not considered in the Professional category IMO. All the more reason to question not only Technics but also the new Korg Pa1XPro which at 384 PPQ is pushing the envelope if you ask me.

Best regards,
Mike

96 PPQ will record your performance flawlessly ( if you PLAY it that way )
The higher PPQ resolutions are only for editing, and many players do not use their kb to edit anyway. In a players world, no one will notice the differance between a higher or a lower resolution. The difference is in how the style or sequence was recorded, and if it is quantized or not. Don't get hung up on the numbers ... use your ears and your head - if a performance grooves ... it will do so at ANY resolution.

[This message has been edited by Uncle Dave (edited 10-25-2003).]

I disagree. There is a clear quantization effect noticeable at 96 ppq. If that is the resolution of the midi device that you are using, then whatever you play or "record" into it will be quantised to that resolution. I can hear a clear difference and quantize effect when I record live play into the jammer Pro 4 software ( which is set at 96 ppq ).

I've heard it said too many times that you can't tell the difference at 96 ppq. This simply isn't true. If you want to find out for yourself.. In a multitrack sequencer that also records audio and can be set to 96 ppq ( or even 192 ), Record a stereo track of your real time playing at that resolution. Set one side ( speaker ) up to record the performance to a midi track, and the other side to an audio track. If your program syncs correctly ( most of todays programs on even a modest modern computer will sync very close) this is a good test. Play it back now and listen to the phase differences between the audio recording and the midifile. You'll hear more than phase differences if you listen closely enough. You'll actually hear notes playing in slightly different times. Remember that this is what you will get when you reproduce your live play in a midifile.

A lot of other things can disrupt timing and playback too. Hiccups happen when too many events are all trying to happen at the same time. Midi can't do that. It does a good job of faking it when you have good resolution and a fast machine, but midi logic dictates that each event has to occur in a sequential order. In other words, It has to do one event after the other. If your resolution is low and your machine ( computer ) isn't up to the task ( slow ) , you'll find that these blips can become quite noticeable.


If you are trying to capture the nuances of a real live performance 96 ppq just won't do it. Neither will 192 .It'll work fine for robotic dance / techno / electronic type grooves, but it won't cut it for acoustic real feel emulations.

AJ


[This message has been edited by Bluezplayer (edited 10-25-2003).]

Hey Mike,

The midi file you just put out (So_Far_Away.mid) shows as having a 480 ppq when using CakeWalk 9.

I wonder if that's a limitation of Cakewalk 9? I've got the latest copy of Sonar at work, I'll have a look come Monday. When you load your midi file on your Tyros and use the event editor, does it show a 1920 ppq?

Just wondering....

96ppq on the KN7000, that seems kinda low for a newer board. My board is 4 or 5 years old and it's at 192 ppq.

mike

I totally DISAGREE! 96 ppq will NOT capture all the 'subtle nuances' of an orginal live performance recording. Perhaps for music where a quantized robotic sound is desired (aka techno & rap) a lower PPQ is fine, but for music where accurately capturing the the original performance is critical, the higher the PPQ the better . . . PERIOD!



I disagree again. I for one, as well as many of my friends & associates (musicians & non musicians alike) are often able to easily distinguish between' a recording recorded at 1920 ppq vs 96 ppq. A recording at 96 lacks the 'life & spark' of the original live performance while recording at 1920 ppq retains it. The difference may often be subtle, but the difference heard is: music sounding sterile (unemotional) vs music sounding 'truly involving'.

A similar comparison can be made to how a regular television picture looks compared to viewing hi definition Television (HDTV), or how a grainy still picture looks compared to a hi resolution image.

An arranger's maximum PPQ can also affect how the arranger keyboard's 'styles' sound as well.

I for one 'WELCOME' 1920 ppq on the Yamaha Tyros & PSR2000/2100 and both in its song as well as style sequencers. I'm convinced that this contributes to the particularly impressive 'live' sound of these keyboard's styles.

Scott

When I had my KN6000... some midi doesn't play well... like if the keabaord was unable to play all the note.

On my PSR-2100 all the midi is play well, no bugs and no hesitation !

Not sure about CW 9. I have Sonar 1 and it does 960. The resolution can be set up in the project options "clock" settings. Not sure if vers 9 works exactly the same. At 960 ppq, I notice no timing glitches at all, but if it gave me 1920 I'd use it.

AJ

I beg to differ UD. Especially if a Sequencer can only resolution up to 96PPQ.

Quoted from an Expert on these issues:

"For music sequencing, the most important consideration is timing accuracy and resolution. After all, that's the purpose of a sequencer; to initiate musical events (as in sounding a note) at specific times. If the sequencer can't initiate an event exactly when you want, the sequencer is worthless. It will never be able to recreate a performance identical to the way that the musician (ie, you) would play a piece of music".

He goes on to say:

"Tests that Roland, one of the largest musical instrument manufacturers, conducted suggest that a minimum of 96 PPQN clock resolution is needed to capture 'most' nuances of a human performance, and a resolution of at least [192 PPQN] is ideal for capturing the most subtle human "irregularities" which clue our brain into the fact that a human is performing the music. In my own use of sequencers, I find that anything less than 192 PPQN is not adequate, and that 240 is ideal."

So 96PPQ timing resolution is less than 'ideal'.


I agree with you Dave that Sequencers with 480PPQ and more do nothing more 'musically' to a Sequence per say. A Sequencer with a PPQ timing resolution of 480PPQ or more is considered in the 'Professional' category as far as standardization goes. It is rated Professional by its ability to not only 'edit' the Sequence itself in greater depth but if you start to Chain devices together (ideally through multiple Busses) the higher PPQ timing resolution would also be captured in the transmission of the MIDI data, ie., (nothing is lost). Something that is of critical importance to maintain. Of course there are other factors brought into the picture especially when using a Computer and that is CPU power, etc.

And I agree with you that Quantization although useful in some situations should be used sparingly if at all. Some Sequencers have a feature to allow 'Half Quantization' which only corrects the most "rhythmically off" events and then only by a random or partial amount. This method is acceptable since it doesn't "wipe out" the subtle human element, but rather, corrects the most grotesque mistakes (and not in a computer perfect manner).

Best regards,
Mike

Hi AJ, Just noticed your posting 'after' I posted mine. Glad to see that we're in concurance on this ppq issue. 96 ppq is definitely NOT acceptable to my ears either. - Scott



I assume you're referring to LIVE arranger kb performance here, right? If so, I'll perhaps partly agree, because I realize the audience is typically (and should be) more focussed on your LIVE performance than the auto accompaniment styles.

Even so, auto accompaminent STYLES recorded LIVE (by a competent musician) at 1920 ppq sounds a lot more life like (capturing all the orignal timing nuances) than the same one recorded at 96 ppq. The audience may not consciously know the reason, but what they'll definitely notice is that the back up band (auto accomp) suddenly sounds a lot more 'emotionally' involving, and that's a really critical aspect to music performance to me.

Scott

[This message has been edited by Scottyee (edited 10-25-2003).]

mike

Yes, So Far Away has a PPQN of 1920. A program called GNMIDI will display correct timing resolutions even beyond 1920 PPQ. Other Software programs are slowly catching up in their ability to recognize and accurately report higher resolution Sequences. Apparently Cakewalk 9 and Sonar 1 (according to AJ) haven't reached that point yet.

Here is the link to GNMIDI: http://www.gnmidi.com/gnmidi.zip

After you install the program just open a Midi file (File/Open) and you will see the PPQ rate listed under "Midi resolution".

Best regards,
Mike



[This message has been edited by Idatrod (edited 10-25-2003).]

There is no doubt about this in my mind Scott. I've done plenty of studio work for myself and other musicians, and while I may not qualify as an expert in the purest sense because I don't do it full time, I've worked alongside pros that do and agree as well.

Here is another thing to look for, and the reason I don't use XG works any more, even though it has 480 ppq. In my last post I said, "Hiccups happen when too many events are all trying to happen at the same time. Midi can't do that. It does a good job of faking it when you have good resolution and a fast machine, but midi logic dictates that each event has to occur in a sequential order. "

I should have said that SOME midi programs do a good job of quickly processing the event changes ( which happen of course in sequential order.. not at the same instant ) . XG works freaks out if you try to have too many cc / event / note changes occuring at the same instant. You can hear it... but you can also see it visually by watching the time line that travels along the piano roll or measures window "stumble" at the spot where the changes occur. I was hoping that it was because I had a slow machine before ( 800 mhz and 256 mb ram ) that maybe the program needed a better environment, but I also know from experience that most midi programs that don't have a lot of other things going on ( audio playback.. midi effects, vst etc,... ) won't usually tax a computer very much at all. As I had suspected, it didn't improve at all when I switched to a 2.4 gig, 512 mb ram machine. Unfortuantely, Jammer Pro ( both 4 and 5 ) stumble like this too at times, although not nearly as much.

This never happens in Sonar or N Track studio, and I can run midi and DX effects galore ( VST in Ntrack as well ) , along with audio playback and no timing problems. I haven't used the SQ1 software that came with the Motif ES very much yet, but like XG works.. it hosts my software plug in voice editors for the ES, so if it works well I'll be pretty happy.

AJ


[This message has been edited by Bluezplayer (edited 10-25-2003).]

Ah, you are correct sir! Thanks for tip.

mike

Fasten your seatbelts!!!!!

Here we go again..

Naw ..... we're all good. No shouting match here!

I think higher ppq's, higher resolutions, the higher sampling rate of quarter notes are a sign of the times. As CPU's get faster and more powerful, we'll see sampling rates go up. As we continue to strive for sonic nirvana from a man-made device, we'll see sampling rates go up. And what do we the end user get from this technological advancement?

How 'bout Megavoices for starters? New voice banks, new control events, new types of responses from said voice banks when receiving said control events. All in the name of what? More realistic sound reproduction.

I can just imagine the sound engineers saying, "Sure we can reproduce the subtle nuances of the resonances of a steel guitar string after being plucked by a nylon pick." But there's a lot of information stored in just one second of that kind of waveform. If I'm going to duplicate that info electronically, I need many, many placeholders in time to store the necessary control events that will manipulate the sound waveform being generated. Hence, increased sampling rates or ppq's.

And I'm just talking the keyboard here. I haven't added the player to the equation. That's a bigger can of worms for another day.

mike

Hi Guys,
aren't most styles fairly heavily quantized anyway in arranger keyboards? At least the ones I studied in my 9000 pro appeared to be.

What's the smallest denomination that the psr2100 or tryros can quantize to ?
My KN7 the lowest quantize note is a 32nd or a 32nd triplet.

Power tracks pro Audio same, except that it has a variety of clock resolutions all the way up to 960ppq.

I did a test on a psr 2000 style
The clock at 960 ppq show the following 3 notes at
1-02-000
1-02-040
1-02-120


The clock at 96 ppq show the following 3

1-02-000
1-02-004
1-02-012

So I'm just wondering what difference it makes. The 96 ppq still hasn't bunched any of the notes together in the above style.

Surely most professionals would use a p.c. sequencer for serious recording?
For as little as $30 to $40 You can buy a p.c. sequencer with a 960pp resolution ( Power Tracks Pro Audio 8)and have the ability to include audio tracks to boot.

The onboard sequencer on my 9000pro left a lot to be desired as far as editing features go, and except for the higher resolution on the psr 2000 the sequencer didn't appear to have any additional editing features.
As far as I was able to tell it doesn't make use of the high resolution available for it's styles either? The ones I've studied, I doubt it would have made any difference as to whether they'd been created in 96 ppq resolution or 1920 resolution.


best wishes
Rikki



[This message has been edited by rikkisbears (edited 10-25-2003).]

The Tyros and PSR 2000/2100 can quantize down to a 1/32 note. The Tyros and PSR 2000/2100 can also quantize 1/4 note, 1/8 note, and 1/16 note triplets and also 1/8 note + 1/8 note triplet and 1/16 note + 1/16 note triplet. What this essentially does, ie., [1/8 note {+} 1/8 note triplet] is it allows you to quantize two different note values at the same time, without compromising the quantization of either one. For example; if you use the 1/8 note + 1/8 note triplet setting, both the straight and triplet notes will be quantized correctly. This would be used to get a triplet feel in the rhythm along with the straight notes; making the sequence have a more natural and lifelike sound to it, ie., (not so much computer generated and artificial sounding). Also the Tyros, PSR 2000 and PSR 2100 allow 'partial' strength quantization too as apposed to full strength or also called 100% quantization.

Best regards,
Mike

Thank you Mike,
in that regard at least, the kn7 & psr's are similar. They both have similar quantize values & functions ( but not clock resolutions).

best wishes
Rikki

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Idatrod:
[B] The Tyros and PSR 2000/2100 can quantize down to a 1/32 note.

I'm not sure, but I would suspect that factory programmed 'internal keyboard styles' aren't created on the associated arranger's style pattern hardware sequencer at all, but instead, recorded using a high end sequencer program such as Cakewalk Sonar, Logic Audio, or Cubase, which not only supports the highest midi timing note resolution available, but also includes other elaborate softwre midi recording & processing capabilities not available on a hardware sequencer. When the completed style pattern is subsequently imported into the keyboard, the midi timing resolution is automatically reduced to whatever the maximum ppq midi note resolution supported by that keyboard. - Scott

Hi Scott,
(I'm not sure if your reply was directed at me) but what I was trying to say was, that even though the psr 2000 has that great 1920 ppq resolution for it's styles, Yamaha don't appear to take advantage of it.
The styles appear as if they could be played just as easily with a 96 ppq timing ( as there's no bunched notes) as they could with 1920 ppq timing. So I'm just wondering what the supposed advantage is in having a clock resolution of 1920 ppg when it comes to playing of styles. I'm fairly certain my 9000pro only had a 96 ppq clock resolution when it came to it's styles and they used to sound great to me.
There again, my main purpose of having an arranger is to play along , using styles.
I don't really bother recording songs using the internal sequencer. I suppose if I did, I'd create a backing track first using the styles. Then record the melody ( and sequencer backing track) live to audio. In which case I doubt it would really matter what clock resolution I had, as the melody would I assume be free flowing, as I'm not using the sequencer's clock ( only the style parts are).
I'm assuming that for most people that do record, the ultimate result would be to record that song to cd.
So I suppose I'd just be bypassing a step by not recording the melody part to the kn's internal sequencer, by recording directly to audio.

best wishes
Rikki

best wishes
Rikki

Hi Rikki. I think just the fact that the newer Yamaha arrangers now support 1920ppq recording & playback in both its style creator & song sequencer is that it offers the POTENTIAL for more impressive lifelike styles which capture all the nuances of the musician who initially recorded the style to be created (both commercially or by the end user, us) This difference is most noticeable in swing (jazz) styles where these kind of playing sublties are most apparent (to me).

From my recollection, there are already a few internal Tyros styles which were recorded at 1920ppq, such as the Jazz 'Bebop' session style. I only expect that Yamaha will be featuring more styles recorded fully unquantized (1920 ppq) on future arrangers.

On the subject of recording to midi or just going directly to digital audio: Though recording directly to Digital audio is certainly a covenient approach, you have a lot more note editing control when recording to midi first, and then to Digital audio. For example, in an 'unquantized' midi file, it's a lot easier to edit/change a 'single' note(s) than it is to do in a digital audio file.

Scott

Hi Scott,
well if they're actually starting to make use of the 1920ppq in the styles, then great.

As for the recording directly to digital ( that's purely hypothetical, but I figured it could work) According to hubby, I'm best seen and NOT heard (he's due for new glasses, but he's got perfect hearing (haa haa, ) so for the time being recording for me is not an issue.

thanks Scott

best wishes
Rikki

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Scottyee:

From my recollection, there are already a few internal Tyros styles which were recorded at 1920ppq, such as the Jazz 'Bebop' session style.
On the subject of recording to midi or just going directly to digital audio: Though recording directly to Digital audio is certainly a covenient approach, you have a lot more note editing control when recording to midi first