nuke Posted December 3, 2010 Report Share Posted December 3, 2010 (edited) ...might be interesting for some of you... i stumbled across this site innerclock so i ran a little test with my MBSeq808-Build...120 bpm, rimshot each quarter...and ended up like this: 22.029|22.072|22.075|22.025|22.077|22.028|22.079|22.030| 22.077|22.027|22.071|22.030|22.075|22.030|22.071|22.031| ...so the largest distance between two quarters is 52 samples...the tested 808 is 87 (on their site) so a 1,18 ms drift compared to 1,97 ms... what i was thinking of is , what cause the drifts? (not that i´m not satisfied with the results) would it be an improvement when the two 33pF caps (C1, C2) will be matched as close as possible? ...this is just a guess...since i´m noob when it comes to electronics (but learning everyday ;)) nik Edited December 4, 2010 by nuke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
latigid on Posted December 4, 2010 Report Share Posted December 4, 2010 ? Faster update rate for the trigger pulses ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuke Posted December 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2010 (edited) ? Faster update rate for the trigger pulses ?? ...mmm....is this just a guess?...or do you think its the only way to avoid the jitter?...i assume then its more a programming aspect rather than selecting components, right? ok...why i ask is because i thought of building such a "sync-lock" on my own (i would buy this- but it´s soo expensive for "just" a midiclock...also like to have more midiouts, like they announced with the cinq-lock)...so when it depends on "just" programming, thought it may be possible with a pic (maybe even with mios ) to get a stable samplebased midiclock via a trigger input... i searched this forum and also the www and stumbled across several projects (pic and arduino-based), but they all seam to be kinda "dead", not further developed... :unsure: the clockboxproject is great, but it also is heavily dependent of a stable midiclock from its source...would be great to have such a trigger-feature added to this... cheers, nik Edited December 4, 2010 by nuke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waveformer Posted December 4, 2010 Report Share Posted December 4, 2010 ...might be interesting for some of you... i stumbled across this site innerclock so i ran a little test with my MBSeq808-Build...120 bpm, rimshot each quarter...and ended up like this: 22.0029|22.0072|22.0075|22.0025|22.0077|22.0028|22.0079|22.0030| 22.0077|22.0027|22.0071|22.0030|22.0075|22.0030|22.0071|22.0031| ...so the largest distance between two quarters is 52 samples...the tested 808 is 87 (on their site) so a 1,18 ms drift compared to 1,97 ms... what i was thinking of is , what cause the drifts? (not that i´m not satisfied with the results) would it be an improvement when the two 33pF caps (C1, C2) will be matched as close as possible? ...this is just a guess...since i´m noob when it comes to electronics (but learning everyday ;)) nik And how did you measure this ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuke Posted December 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2010 (edited) And how did you measure this ? did u read the article on the innerclock site posted above?...they describe the procedure there... i put the mb808seq as master at 120bpm with a rimshot each quarternote...in soundforge i sampled 4 measures...so 16 rimshots in total...the distance between two rims should be exactly 22.050 samples @ 44.1Khz...the results are posted above...i know its not 22.0029 ...should read 22.029 and so on, with a zero less (my fault, was a copy paste error :ahappy: ) <- corrected the readouts Edited December 4, 2010 by nuke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.