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).]