Elektron Musical Instruments

I'm posting this copied across from the Elektron-Users Forum not to
double up but to clarify my position once and for all on the SPS-1
Timing Debate. Two main points cause me greatest concern. The first is
the lack of understanding by some of the real issue at hand and
secondly, that I am seeking to profit in some way by highlighting
limitations in the SPS-1 that make the purchase of my own Sync-Shift a
more attractive proposition which you will see is not the case.

Quote from Dreg/-

David read this please,

These are the tools I've/we've got and I/we use em, pretty simple? I
won't use the old saying about blaming but I'll get close

This thread should be closed. Its only going in circles. /unquote.

Response:

I read every post and respond where possible Dreg. The very reason
these are the tools we have right now is precisely why the thread is
important and possibly why the topic has had nearly 5000 views in just
over a single month.

It may also be why the moderators are still leaving it open. I hope so.

The importance of timing stability is core to what we all do. If the
thread gives you nightmares or causes you distress it is much simpler
if you do not read it rather than seeking to gag healthy debate. The
issue will still generate interest and creative discussion regardless
and it may benefit you someday if you allow it space.

I feel fairly confident now nothing can be done to improve the
SPS-1/UW in its current form, however, I am still a big Elektron
supporter and I am certain the interest and topics raised will be of
interest to them in the future.

In the end I am still a potential customer for future products and
that will always be of importance to any manufacturer in any business.

It is not going in circles either - many of the hysterical outbursts
by people who took personally my views as an attack on Elektron,
themselves, their music and creativity in general have either calmed
down enough to see rationally, grasped the concept finally or dropped
off altogether because they have nothing constructive to contribute.

On the other hand there have been many posts and I have had many
private messages from individuals who feel just as strongly as I do
and agree that if we remain silent on these issues then we keep
getting more of the same and our tools don't improve.

I'm not blaming my tools for creative frustration - I am not
frustrated at all. I understand well that accepting limitation can be
a good thing sometimes.

My motivation for this thread is not blame or axe-grinding for
something impossible or unnecessary.

I have tools already from years gone by that honor the concept that a
stable tempo/event clock was/is the foundation of sequencer design.

The importance of that concept has never changed but our equipment
designers have let it slip down the priority order.

Many people feel the same as I do about this.

I'm not saying I can't make music with what we have.

What I am saying is that precisely the attitude of 'just live with
what you have and stop moaning' over the last 20 years in the area of
electronic music production has directly contributed to the overall
slide in focus - most certainly in the area of clock/event/tempo
stability.

Without debate no-one learns anything.

Without pressure, nothing changes.

In 1984 - dedicated controls for adding jitter to precision click
tracks, dedicated I/O on all hardware for synchronisation and
sub-millisecond drum/trigger alignment were considered an essential
and expected part of making good records.

Why is it in 2007 we are happy to accept that 2.2 millisecond random
clock/event/step slop in 'The World's Best Beat Box' is 'feel' and
should in some strange way be seen as a feature?

Because over time we forget.

We forget what good timing in electronic music actually sounds like.
We are so used to hearing software and hardware doing impressions of
Linns and TR-808s that we start to believe the new stuff is just like
the old stuff and any subjective difference is just nostalgia for the
past.

Bullshit.

Yes of course sound quality has a role to play in this too and the
electronic instrument industry has developed and nurtured ever
increasing sample frequency and bit rates in its quest to make digital
a convincing clone of analogue.

However, almost no effort has been made over that same period to
ensure that our machines that play these sounds back to us do so with
the same precision and consistency as we used to take for granted in
the past.

Due to very clever marketing mostly rather than an understanding of
the processes involved most consumers these days expect their
DAW/Sound Card to at least record and play back at 96 kHz.

In my line of work many individuals with perfectly good ears will
quietly admit to not hearing much difference between 48 kHz and 96 kHz
in most listening environments and yet they all would have no problem
throwing that 48 kHz sound card in the bin and insist they must always
record at 96 kHz.

Think of the serious time, engineering, reasearch, money and
investment globally in developing precision Word Clock Generators with
ever lower jitter figures to give digital audio mixes increased
clarity and depth.

Would anyone with a brain walk into the Apogee or Prism head offices
and tell them all to 'just be happy with what you have and make some
music guys'.

Why is that same level of mostly blind, often peer-pressure driven
commitment to higher sonic fidelity not seen when discussing timing
stability in sequencing hardware and software when it is at least
equal in significance when making music?

Baseline sequencer tight timing is worth striving for because it makes
a huge difference to what we do and unless we, as the equipment
consumers, make a noise about it then it just slips off the radar even
further.

If we were to follow your advice and just be happy 'with the tools we
have now' - in 5 years time, who knows, maybe 8 milliseconds of random
clock/tempo/step slop will be considered the perfect human groove.

I'd rather reverse that trend if we possibly can. /Unquote.

Quote from Thunder:-

By the way Innerclock, has this thread helped you sell more of your
crappy overpriced syncshifts? I hope so, quite the marketing plan
you've got there. - /unquote.

Response:

As a matter of fact no Thunder - if you understood the SPS-1 random
step error concept properly you would realise that no amount of
Sync-Shift can fix tempo/step jitter in any hardware device or
sequencing software.

All the Sync-Shift does is offset the sync signal it receives. If you
send it sloppy clock it outputs sloppy clock - simple as that.

If the Sync-Shift fixed the problem as you seem to suggest then (a) I
would be using it between my MPC-3K and the SPS-1, (b) I would be
advertising the fact and selling bucket loads which I am not and (c) I
would not have wasted my time starting this thread because I would
have my own home grown solution.

So, let's make this perfectly clear for everybody - the notion of me
using this forum as a marketing strategy is way off target.

The people who have Sync-Shifts (Mk1 or Mk II) didn't seem to think
they were overpriced and no one has said they were crappy:-

http://www.innerclocksystems.com/index.asp?action=page&name=17

As I said before - I can hear the MD drifting against other things I
own way before I open an editor. If you can't and don't care then stay
off the thread and let others work it out.

Regards - David.