BPM Behaviour / Not Sync

LucidSFX · « **on:** July 09, 2017, 03:17:19 PM »

Hey group, I have been rebuilding my Tempest Live PA set. The idea is that I loop a 1bar pattern to act as a 3rd CDJ. So, I noticed that if I match the BPM of the Tempest to the CDJ the Tempest falls out of phrase. I am not talking about syncing via MIDI. System settings has Tempest at Master and no sync out via usb or din.

This happens with any track playing on the CDJ. The decks are set to quantise and to ensure stability I'll loop the CDJ to 4bars on the beat.

I didn't have this problem with my Octatrack or Maschine (both sold now) so this rules out a Pioneer issue.

I can get relatively close by setting the CDJ to -/+6 and micro adjust the CDJ tempo by 0.1BPM but it isnt perfect.

Basically, I am reseting the loop by pressing play on the Tempest but it will lose phrasing after 2-4bars. Which means I am constantly reseting the Tempest BPM.

Firmware is xxxx.12. I never put this into practice before now so I can't comment on previous O/S and hesitate to call this a bug.

Anyone with the same or similar setup? Thoughts?

Trevor Refix · « **Reply #1 on:** July 09, 2017, 03:33:56 PM »

Strange. I'm also on os.12 and lately in my live set I've been starting sequences on the Tempest "on the fly" - as in not midi sync'd but just having the bpm of the pattern match that of my Octatrack and pressing play. They seem to stay in sync pretty well over 16 - 24 bars, after that I change the pattern anyways.

LucidSFX · « **Reply #2 on:** July 09, 2017, 03:53:58 PM »

Interesting. I have to edit my previous comment. It appears to screw with BPM when I record a pattern to a sound. I will narrow it down. The noticability could be a factor of BPM. My last attempt was at 124BPM and ran through 64 bars when the drift started to occur but this was also at the same time I was adding to the pattern on another sound.

I stepped out for a bit but will try to isolate the issue a little more.

cbmd · « **Reply #3 on:** July 10, 2017, 01:02:08 PM »

Any two devices which are not synchronized will eventually drift out of time due to inherent differences in their respective clock stabilities. As such, I would say that the behavior you noted is expected and nothing is wrong in this regard.

LucidSFX · « **Reply #4 on:** July 10, 2017, 09:10:23 PM »

Yes but not so in this manner. I am still trying to figure exactly what it is that triggers this. Too soon to be 100% i know the internal clock is tight. I am thinking processor hiccup.

If you beat match 2 turntables by ear, over time they will drift. In this case it showing a kind of immediate clock issue when programming a sequence of sounds. When I play the tempest straight without editing sounds or programming a pattern everything is as expected.

LucidSFX · « **Reply #5 on:** July 11, 2017, 10:44:20 PM »

Well it appears that the issue isn't the Tempest. I am now almost 100% sure it os the CDJ's pitch sensitivity. I just played out for 4hrs. I spent a decent amount of time pushing or pulling the CDJ to stay tight with the Tempest. So fpr those who want to do what I do set the BPM on the tempest to 0.1% BELOW the Tempest. In order to keep sync tight you MUST set the pitch range to +/- 6. So keep in mind that the Tempest tempo increases and decreases by 0.5bpm. I generally keep the Tempest at whole numbers. For example, play out the tempest at 126 BPM amd set the CDJ at 125.9 BPM (pitch control set to +/- 6).

Anyway, if anything changes on my end I will update the post.

bozo · « **Reply #6 on:** July 12, 2017, 09:51:02 AM »

Quote from: cbmd on July 10, 2017, 01:02:08 PM

Any two devices which are not synchronized will eventually drift out of time due to inherent differences in their respective clock stabilities. As such, I would say that the behavior you noted is expected and nothing is wrong in this regard.

I've been mentioning this issue since owning it a little over a few months.

No its not me, been at this stuff since 82 and in the 90's we would often jam un-midi synced (so we wouldnt get the dreaded call of "can we stop start" for the 20th time.)
i've tried numerous times with numerous machines, near impossible to keep the tempest beat matched for even a short period of time.
The tempest has a shocking internal tempo, please dont gloss over it.

LucidSFX · « **Reply #7 on:** July 12, 2017, 11:59:54 AM »

I am going to be at it again tonight to see if I can duplicate my success yesterday. Specifically, I am wondering if the issue gpes away after the tempest warmed up. I know it sounds stoopid *grin* but after I went a little crazy adjust as many parameters as possible and ran play for a bit the Tempest seemed tighter.

Note: the solution for the CDJ's is legit. End result is that it works.

What gear are you beat matching with? Have you tried beat matching with only the click sound from each device or a short hit with a fast attack?

bozo · « **Reply #8 on:** July 13, 2017, 01:41:05 AM »

Quote from: LucidSFX on July 12, 2017, 11:59:54 AM

I am going to be at it again tonight to see if I can duplicate my success yesterday. Specifically, I am wondering if the issue gpes away after the tempest warmed up. I know it sounds stoopid *grin* but after I went a little crazy adjust as many parameters as possible and ran play for a bit the Tempest seemed tighter.

Note: the solution for the CDJ's is legit. End result is that it works.

What gear are you beat matching with? Have you tried beat matching with only the click sound from each device or a short hit with a fast attack?

Hmm my post about my knowledge of the internal timing of the T was deleted, it sucks.

DSI, you cant handle the truth...

idm · « **Reply #9 on:** July 13, 2017, 03:13:28 AM »

While it might be true that one device's clock is more stable than the other, there's no way you can jam unsynced with multiple hardware device's without some adjustment (nudging) along the way.

This is simply because a difference of 0,001 bpm will cause drift, and there's no way each device is exactly 129.0000 bpm when you set it at that. Thats why nudge exist.

I've jammed unsynced many times and nudging is part of the deal.

RobH · « **Reply #10 on:** July 13, 2017, 04:32:25 AM »

Yeah everything i've ever sync'd has needed nudging. Glad i learnt to dj with decks tbh, i to be brutal i don't particulary like the cdj era of DJ, i find that because the don't have to think about the mix they don't feel the music as much and a lot of sets i hear are more like a Vocal+FX track and its not pleasant, also, you know when you play actual records and your body sways between the two, you can see decent dj's doing it their body is drawnt to both records micro timing has kicked in and they are acutely aware of both records being sync'd in the groove, i find the cdj kids miss that groove. Laidback luke this guy is one of the more technically skilled dj's but his sets really do nothing for me, theres the odd moment of yeah thats cool, but nothing he does seems as skilled as watching say Jeff Mills tear the floor apart with 3 records gettting thrown down every 30 seconds u know haha/

Ok rant over, what was this thread about, i forgot!>!>

and just to be clear i'm not a fan of Jeff Mills type of music, although, when i saw him live well, that was a different matter, when your in the club and mills plays, its a totally different experience one i'll never actually forget. He forced me to love him forever even tho i literally hate all the records he played, thats the sign of an amazing DJ.

LucidSFX · « **Reply #11 on:** July 13, 2017, 08:01:43 AM »

This thread is not about DRIFT. Drift is gradual. What happened here was something different.

I didn't test for long last night. I ended up going out. Initial test had issue.

I appreciate the reponses but know that In have been at this since 1989. I know enough about spinning decks. A while back I stopped using midi sync on gear cause I was able to be more flexible with this hyBrid setup. Never has this jump in BPM been a problem. With my now sold Octatrack I didnt have an issue at all when spinning as a third deck. No CDJ .1% workaround needed.

What does happen over time is that the Tempest works as expected. I dont know squat about hardware processing priorities but provided that I am not crazy, is it not conceiveable that internal clock driving playback can be compromised just enought due to an instruction set which took longer to buffer or process? This machine is said to have squeezed out every bit of processing power avail and can no longer accomodate new features. What if we have already squeezed out too much?

I dont want to start a ghost hunt and it is managable for me to continuously press play but not always practicle in certain mix situations.

John the Savage · « **Reply #12 on:** January 19, 2018, 09:10:57 PM »

I realize this thread is several months old now, and given that Tempest development is officially over, it's not like we're going to see any more fixes; but I wanted to throw my proverbial two cents on the pile here, if only to commiserate with those of you have noticed just how shoddy the Tempest's internal clock can be, and to counter (no pun intended) the "expected behavior" argument.

As some of you know, I've been touring professionally for a long time (28 years and counting in fact), and I often choose to run the various electronic components of my live rig without MIDI sync, because I find it liberating, less rigid, and ultimately more engaging. Hell, sometimes the material simply won't allow for it, and actually requires the tempo be flexible. Sufficed to say, I've done this before. Anyway...

Recently, I've had reason to run the Tempest unsynced (if that's a word) alongside several other sequencers and drum machines, and ya... Bottom line is, the stability of its internal clock is truly deplorable—measurably worse today than it was in the early days of the operating system—so much so that it's basically unusable now when running free against other clock sources.

In the studio last night with a colleague, we had a lot of gear with us, so we decided to run a practical, real-world test:

We manually synced up four Elektron boxes {MachineDrum, Analog Four, Analog RYTM, and an Octatrack} with the Tempest—No MIDI cables involved, just our ears and impeccable rhythmic sensibilities (wink)—and just for shit's and giggles, also hit play on several budget drum machines and groove-boxes as well {Alesis SR-18, Korg Electribe 2, and a lowly Roland SP-404SX}. I kid you not, at 78 BPM the Tempest was already starting to flam against the other boxes just 4 bars in, and didn't make it 8 bars before it was so far out of sync that it had to be stopped and restarted. The other machines, on the other hand, made it nearly 40 minutes before the trough got too wide!

For good measure (again, no pun intended), we slaved the Tempest to the SR-18, and did the test again... We were easily able to jam with the other boxes, unsynced, for 20 - 40 minutes on average without having to reset. Take from that what you will.

So, will "any two devices which are not synchronized eventually drift out of time due to inherent differences in their respective clock stabilities"? Yes, of course. But not like this. The Tempest seems to run almost a 10th of a BPM slow, depending on tempo. That's not acceptable by any standard.

Cheers!

Stoss · « **Reply #13 on:** January 20, 2018, 08:18:45 AM »

In my studio I’ve got three musicians total, all using machines that slave their tempo to the Tempest. When the Tempest is set to something like 95 BPM, all other machines that show their operating clock always flicker between 95 and 94.9 BPM. I watch it right in front of me on my Roland SPD-SX. When I use an Elektron Analog Rytm in place of the Tempest, this doesn’t happen. All other devices show exactly the same BPM as the Rytm.

I’ve mentioned this before and have been told the “expected behavior” answer. I’m more of a fan of “user expected behavior” and “designed behavior”... neither of which seem to matter much when things get difficult.

Anyway, the problem doesn’t necessarily affect our workflow, but I mention it here as further evidence that the Tempest stands alone in its inability to produce a perfect clock.

John the Savage · « **Reply #14 on:** January 20, 2018, 07:31:24 PM »

Quote from: Stoss on January 20, 2018, 08:18:45 AM

When the Tempest is set to something like 95 BPM, all other machines that show their operating clock always flicker between 95 and 94.9 BPM. I watch it right in front of me on my Roland SPD-SX. When I use an Elektron Analog Rytm in place of the Tempest, this doesn’t happen. All other devices show exactly the same BPM as the Rytm.

Yep, this is consistent with my observations as well. When the Tempest is master, every machine we have registers an external tempo 1/10th of a BPM slower than the supposed tempo. And when the Tempest is slaved to, well, just about any external clock source really, it always registers the external tempo as reality +0.1...

There’s no way that’s a coincidence. And in terms of accuracy, it’s laughable (if it were funny).

Honestly, if I didn’t need the Tempest’s sound design facilities and overall interface, I’d have replaced it years ago. It continues to disillusion me at every turn, usually when it counts the most (sigh).

Cheers!

LucidSFX · « **Reply #15 on:** January 21, 2018, 04:57:40 PM »

Yeah that sucks John. Issue is still
Present. So I bought a DJS-1000 to sample my Tempest and used a 3rd CDJ. Everything works without using the pioneer pro link. Matching bpM by ear. No issues. Throw in the Tempest and problems like you and described screw everything up. Great machine. Can’t use live. I wish we could drill this down and even remove features to have a super stable clock.

John the Savage · « **Reply #16 on:** January 21, 2018, 06:22:38 PM »

Quote from: LucidSFX on January 21, 2018, 04:57:40 PM

I wish we could drill this down and even remove features to have a super stable clock.

I couldn't agree more, and so would Roger Linn for that matter. In the hundreds of emails and video calls that Roger and I exchanged over the year-and-a-half we worked on bug fixes, we must have commiserated a dozen times, at length, about how the Tempest's development got so out-of-hand, and how it was supposed to be a much simpler, more elegant box.

I implored him to remove so many poorly implemented features, particularly those that weren't a part of the original specs, and instead clean up the G.U.I. and polish core functionalities; but he was concerned that there would be too much backlash if he removed features. And was absolutely right in thinking so. The community, with their unrealistic, idealistic demands, are as much to blame for this mess as the programmers who pandered to them.

Anyway, it's a shame. I bought the Tempest for its interface, and its potential for live performance; but the sad irony is, most of the time I end up sampling the sounds I make on it into other, more reliable boxes, and just leave the Tempest itself at home. And it's always the most basic, inexcusable crap that throws a wrench in the system too: like the fact that its sequencer can't hold its own for so much as 8 lousy bars without drifting. The only thing more infuriating is how DSI continues to patronize the working professionals among us about how all these glaring anomalies are "expected behavior". I fear those lads have drank their own Kool-aid, if you know what I mean.

Let's see: it's a grumpy slave at the best of times, it can't run free without losing time almost immediately, and if it's the master clock, it pushes everything else off the grid... So what good is it?

Cheers!

Pidcin · « **Reply #17 on:** January 22, 2018, 12:22:36 AM »

Quote from: John the Savage on January 21, 2018, 06:22:38 PM

Quote from: LucidSFX on January 21, 2018, 04:57:40 PM
I wish we could drill this down and even remove features to have a super stable clock.

I couldn't agree more, and so would Roger Linn for that matter. In the hundreds of emails and video calls that Roger and I exchanged over the year-and-a-half we worked on bug fixes, we must have commiserated a dozen times, at length, about how the Tempest's development got so out-of-hand, and how it was supposed to be a much simpler, more elegant box.

I implored him to remove so many poorly implemented features, particularly those that weren't a part of the original specs, and instead clean up the G.U.I. and polish core functionalities; but he was concerned that there would be too much backlash if he removed features. And was absolutely right in thinking so. The community, with their unrealistic, idealistic demands, are as much to blame for this mess as the programmers who pandered to them.

Anyway, it's a shame. I bought the Tempest for its interface, and its potential for live performance; but the sad irony is, most of the time I end up sampling the sounds I make on it into other, more reliable boxes, and just leave the Tempest itself at home. And it's always the most basic, inexcusable crap that throws a wrench in the system too: like the fact that its sequencer can't hold its own for so much as 8 lousy bars without drifting. The only thing more infuriating is how DSI continues to patronize the working professionals among us about how all these glaring anomalies are "expected behavior". I fear those lads have drank their own Kool-aid, if you know what I mean.

Let's see: it's a grumpy slave at the best of times, it can't run free without losing time almost immediately, and if it's the master clock, it pushes everything else off the grid... So what good is it?

Cheers!

You know I just got drilled by a particular beta tester for the tempest and he was very very affirmative and aggressive that there’s no flaws with the midi in the tempest .

I’ve been having some serious problems with midi on the tempest so I’m glad:not glad I’m the only one .. that’s why I think we should petition and even band together a fundraising campaign for the TEMPEST II .

John the Savage · « **Reply #18 on:** January 22, 2018, 01:15:15 AM »

Quote from: Pidcin on January 22, 2018, 12:22:36 AM

You know I just got drilled by a particular beta tester for the tempest and he was very very affirmative and aggressive that there’s no flaws with the midi in the tempest .

I’ve been having some serious problems with midi on the tempest so I’m glad:not glad I’m the only one .. that’s why I think we should petition and even band together a fundraising campaign for the TEMPEST II .

I generally keep up with the conversation around here, and haven't seen anyone "drill" you over the Tempest's MIDI implementation. At any rate, we're having a practical conversation here, specifically about the stability of the Tempest's internal clock, and you already have a dedicated thread in which to campaign for your "Tempest II". I, for one, could not be less interested in another Dave Smith branded drum machine; hence why I haven't posted anything in your other thread—ahem!

Besides which, I'd rather wait to see what Roger Linn comes up with next, on his own (wink)!

Cheers!

RobH · « **Reply #19 on:** January 22, 2018, 08:30:53 AM »

Picdin that is not what I said. I did not say there was no flaws.

What I did say is that the Tempest when slaved is fine. I know it is because I slave mine all the time and it does not fall out of sync by a full bpm every 40 minutes like suggested.

I also disagreed with your notion that the Tempest won’t sync because it’s midi implementation is “piss poor”.

I am the beta tester and spent hours and hours testing sync so yes when I tried to help you in a private conversation and you refused to even try and connect your Kronos and Tempest together after asking for my help because of things you have read about old firmware I did find you rude and pretty obnoxious. The fact you now turn that conversation you said was “over” onto the public forum just proves the point.