"Litmus Test - def: any kind of indicator used to classify something either favorably or unfavorably"

Over many years of testing and checking the timing performance characteristics of different musical sequencing devices I rely on a very simple test that gives an accurate indication of how well it keeps time.

Take any sequencing device - in a sampler use a tight edited fast transient sound like a rim shot - look at it closely on an editor software application to make sure the start time is tight. On a ROM Player or sequencer with built-in sounds - select a similarly tight percussive sound or patch.

Make certain any sample output or patch VCA/EG settings are set to absolute zero/fastest possible attack time.

Sequence a simple two bar pattern at exactly 120 BPM with hard quantised Sixteenth Notes playing only your test sample.

Now play the pattern and record the audio output into any reasonable audio recording software application at 48 kHz for 30 seconds or so - Soundforge, Wavelab etc.

[It is not necessary to use a lab oscilloscope for this type of testing. We are interested primarily in analysing timing discrepancies that you can hear. Measuring rhythmic precision down to the individual sample at 48 kHz (20 microseconds) is more than accurate enough.]

Open up the waveform of your recording. Make sure your editor is set to view and edit your waveform in samples rather than absolute time.

Zoom right in on the very front of a waveform (any of them will do) and place a marker - do it at the absolute maximum magnification on screen so you are certain the marker is where the waveform begins.

Now zoom back out and locate the very next waveform in the recording and again, zoom all the way back in and place another marker at the very start of this one too. Repeat this for at least 8 of your recorded 'clicks' in the recording - 16 is better if you have the patience.

Now 'select' the block between the first two markers - usually clicking in the area with the mouse does the job. Somewhere on screen the number of actual samples between your two markers will be indicated.

Write this number down. Repeat this for each 'block' between all markers you have placed.

At 120 BPM - a perfect Sixteenth Note interval recorded at 48 kHz is exactly 6000 samples in length.

The amount your Sixteenth Note intervals vary will indicate how tight your sequencer or drum machine really is. The bigger the variation, the sloppier the timing.

Two things obviously affect this measurement - the real tempo (as opposed to what it tells you on the screen) and jitter (tempo fluctuations). What is critical is the amount of variation you find in your measurements. If your results vary by more than 50 samples then the device's ability to keep tight rhythmic time is questionable. Remember that our test is very easy on the hardware and software resources - a single track of well spaced events. There are no polyphony or multitimbral excuses to hide behind.

Sequencer Tempo Jitter/Event Slop has two primary causes - Clock Jitter (where the clock driving the internal sequencer or slave device is a bit rough) and Internal Event Trigger Lag (where a devices ability to correctly trigger an event referenced to the tempo grid/clock position is compromised in someway leading to push-pull within the device itself).

The net timing performance stability in any sequencing system is a combination of both these factors.

Keep in mind also that these test results are the very best your box or software application can produce. Under normal usage you will usually find things get much worse.

Published hardware and software specifications in owner's manuals, on-line and in the glossy brochures and print media focus almost exclusively on the myriad of bells and whistles on offer. The aim being of course to tempt and tease in a bigger, faster, wider, louder, and 'newer is better' display of spec-superiority - polyphony, memory, number of patches, high sample rates, track count, plug-in support, data I/O speed, CD Burning etc.

What they never publish is timing performance.

You can spend a fortune on furnishings and wallpaper but a house is only as good as the foundation it is built on and in sequencing the foundation is the tempo-clock.

[On a recent forum regarding sequencer timing stability the audio/DAW method of timing measurement as outlined here was strongly critisised by some as being too inaccurate to be considered meaningful when measuring tempo jitter in sequencers. For those of you reading this with similar views I thought it important to quote a direct reply from a senior member of the design/R&D team involved with the product in question: ' There is nothing wrong with your method of measuring the timing jitter, any fully working sound card will do.']

Time is the core foundation on which music is created because what turns random sound into music is how the sounds are played or replayed over time.

There is a common misconception that certain sequencers and drum machines have a magic ‘groove’ or feel built right into them. After many years of testing and experimentation my own belief is that there is no 'magic' beat box feel - vintage or contemporary. What gives any rhythmic pattern 'feel' is how we anticipate where the sounds fall in time and, because every individual hears subjectively, it makes practical analysis and criticism of timing performance in sequencers very difficult.

Adding any random element to step/event placement in any sequencing device or software application does not create feel. All this does is blur the edges. 

The exact opposite applies when deliberate push-pull placement of steps and events against a strict, quantised tempo-grid is used to customise rhythmic feel - pushed hats, late snares and of course added amounts of shuffle/swing.



Discussions about timing precision in music always invoke passionate debate and there are many who see any quest for tighter timing performance as an obsessive desire for extreme rigidity and control. The assertion being that this is a very negative characteristic and that ‘going with the flow’ and accepting some element of ‘human-feel’ is a far more musically appealing way to be.

Rigidity has negative connotations for most musicians but I must stress again that a desire for precision and consistency in sequencing is not about rigidity or stiffness at all. Quite the reverse in fact.

Rhythmic feel fundamentally relies on the strict principle that if a snare is deliberately placed 5 ticks late it must always sound 5 ticks late to faithfully maintain the groove. The potential feel in any rhythm becomes less focused when the snares fall 3 ticks late sometimes and 7 ticks late other times in a pattern or loop when this timing variation is of a random nature.

It is important not to confuse random timing errors with any concept of creative 'human' feel. It is not feel in any sense at all because the timing variation is random.

It is simply software and hardware not doing the job well.

As I get around to it I will list here my measurements on various boxes and software sequencing applications. All tests as specified above - 120 BPM recorded at 48 kHz into Soundforge 8 or Soundforge 9. The group of measured consecutive sixteenth note intervals will be listed in samples along with a maximum variance between any two.

On first inspection it may seem that measuring the error margin away from the theoretical 'perfect' grid value of 6000 is a more accurate way to look at these numbers, however, human perception of rhythmic feel is how our brain interprets the length of time BETWEEN consecutive rhythmic events. This is why the push-pull timing of consecutive events is the most significant set of numbers to consider when looking at sequencer timing stability.

Date of test and current Operating System is listed. Obviously a change of OS may mean a change in test results. Equipment listed is in no order of personal preference.

Feel free to email me if your own testing provides a different set of numbers.

Remember that this is a highly biased rating system based on one feature only. Important as timing performance is, there are many other aspects to software and hardware sequencers that contribute their overall worth as creative tools.

My genuine wish is that the designers and manufacturers of our current and future music machines start placing timing performance at the very top of the priority list when it comes to features and OS updates they offer.

The motivation for the Litmus testing is not to cause any individuals or organisations grief but simply to provide reliable timing information to those who want to know. There have been some that view this page as detrimental to companies that manufacture products that rank low on the timing stability scale. There are also some that have actively suggested on a number of forums that this page is simply a way for me to generate Sync-Shift sales. For those that understand the design of the Sync-Shift this notion is ridiculous.

The Litmus Ranking scale indicates Event/Tempo Jitter within a device itself. If a sequencer or drum-machine has internal coding or hardware issues that cause timing irregularities, then no amount of Sync-Shifting will cure that. The Sync-Shift is a Start-Offset device. Nothing more and nothing less.

Litmus Ranking Table:- Tempo Jitter in Samples @ 48kHz

= Zero to 25

= 25 to 50

= 50 to 75

= 75 to 100

= 100 to 125

= 125 to 150

= 150 to 175

= 175 to 200

= 200 to 225

= 225 to 250

= more than 250

Roland MC-202 MicroComposer

Test Date:16.12.11

This Test: Internal Sequencer - External Sample Accurate Din-Sync

Number of samples [44.1 kHz] between consecutive Eighth Notes:
11066/ 11068/ 10968/ 10981/ 11069/ 10989/ 11066/ 10977/ 11068/ 10975/ 11071/ 10985/ 11068/ 10988/ 11063

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Eighth Note intervals:
100 Samples [2.27ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

This Test: Internal EG/VCA - CV/Gate Direct Input from Analogic-ACS Precision Sequencer at 120 BPM via Sync-Gen II

Number of samples [44.1 kHz] between consecutive Eighth Notes:
11025/ 11026/ 11024/ 11026/ 11025/ 11025/ 11024/ 11025/ 11024/ 11025/ 11024/ 11025/ 11025/ 11024/ 11024

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Eighth Note intervals:
2 Samples [0.05ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

Korg Monotribe/OS Version 2.0

Test Date:18.02.12

This Test: Internal Sync (note:the Monotribe uses an analogue oscillator for internal tempo control and 120 BPM is a guide only - the important data is the variance of the values around the mean/average)

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
6000/ 5977/ 5973/ 6002/ 5973/ 5977/ 6000/ 5975/ 6000/ 5976/ 5973/ 6003/ 5973/ 5977/ 5998/ 6000

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
30 Samples [0.62ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

This Test: External Sample Accurate Pulse-Sync

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
6025/ 5973/ 6025/ 5973/ 6024/ 5974/ 6026/ 5973/ 6026/ 5974/ 6026/ 5973/ 6025/ 5975/ 6024/ 5974 (Note the precise push-pull/slight swing between 16ths)

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
50 Samples [1.04ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

TipTop Audio Z-8000 Matrix Sequencer

TipTop Audio Web -  http://www.tiptopaudio.com/

Test Date:13.12.11

This Test: External Sample Accurate Pulse-Sync

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
Zero Samples [0.00ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

Akai MPC-5000/OS Version 2.00

Test Date:16.02.12

This Test: Pattern Mode/Cycle - Internal Sync

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
5991/ 5991/ 5991/ 6060/ 5991/ 5991/ 5991/ 6060/ 5922/ 6060/ 5922/ 6060/ 5991/ 5991/ 5991/ 6060

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
138 Samples [2.87ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

This Test: Song Mode - Internal Sync

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
5922/ 6060/ 5991/ 5991/ 5991/ 5991/ 6060/ 5991/ 5991/ 5991/ 5991/ 5991/ 5991/ 5991/ 6060/ 5991

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
138 Samples [2.87ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

This Test: Pattern Mode/Cycle - External Sample Accurate Midi Clock

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
5991/ 5991/ 6060/ 5991/ 5922/ 5991/ 6060/ 5991/ 5991/ 5991/ 6060/ 5991/ 5991/ 5922/ 6060/ 5991

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
138 Samples [2.87ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

This Test: Song Mode - External Sample Accurate Midi Clock

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
5991/ 5991/ 5991/ 5991/ 5991/ 5991/ 5991/ 6060/ 5991/ 5991/ 5991/ 5991/ 5991/ 5991/ 5991/ 6060

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
69 Samples [1.44ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

Analogic-ACS TM-116 Analogue Control System

Test Date:13.12.11

This Test: External Sample Accurate Pulse-Sync

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
Zero Samples [0.00ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

Kawai R100

Test Date:18.02.12

This Test: Pattern Mode/Cycle - Internal Sync

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
6029/ 6030/ 6030/ 6030/ 6062/ 6010/ 6017/ 6030/ 6030/ 6030/ 6029/ 6030/ 6030/ 6030/ 6036/ 6037

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
52 Samples [1.08ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

This Test: Pattern Mode/Cycle - External Sample Accurate Din-Sync

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
Zero Samples [0.00ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

This Test: Pattern Mode/Cycle - External Sample Accurate Midi Clock

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
6005/ 6007/ 6007/ 6003/ 6007/ 6005/ 6007/ 6005/ 6007/ 6005/ 6007/ 6005/ 6007/ 6005/ 6006/ 6006

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
4 Samples [0.08ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

This Test: Pattern Mode/Cycle - External Sample Accurate Pulse-Sync

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
Zero Samples [0.00ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

Analogue Solutions - Oberkorn MKIII

Test Date: 30.01.12

This Test: Internal Sync

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
6467/ 6468/ 6468/ 6468/ 6468/ 6468/ 6468/ 6469/ 6469/ 6468/ 6468/ 6468/ 6468/ 6468/ 6468/ 6469

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
1 Sample [0.02ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

Test Date:30.01.12

This Test: External Sample Accurate Pulse-Sync

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
Zero Samples [0.00ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

This Test: External Sample Accurate Midi Clock

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000/ 6000

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
Zero Samples [0.00ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

Cwejman ADSR-VC Dual Voltage Control Transient Generator

Test Date:20.12.11

This Test: Trigger Input to EG Output

Number of samples [44.1 kHz] between Trigger Input and Attack Peak at fastest setting:
Log = 9 samples (0.20ms)
Exp = 10 samples (0.23ms)

Litmus Ranking: 

Cwejman CTG-VC Complex Transient Generator

Test Date:20.12.11

This Test: Trigger Input to EG Output

Number of samples [44.1 kHz] between Trigger Input and Attack Peak at fastest setting:
Log = 3 samples (0.07ms)
Exp = 5 samples (0.11ms)

Litmus Ranking: 

Roland MV-8800/OS Version 1.010

Test Date:22.02.12

This Test: Pattern Mode/Cycle - Internal Sync

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
6027/ 5978/ 5993/ 6018/ 6000/ 5995/ 6056/ 5958/ 5997/ 6050/ 5958/ 5996/ 6058/ 5956/ 5993/ 6013

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
102 Samples [2.13ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

This Test: Song Mode - Internal Sync

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
5951/ 6061/ 5954/ 5991/ 6002/ 6010/ 6002/ 6001/ 6003/ 5998/ 6015/ 5994/ 6003/ 6013/ 5990/5960

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
110 Samples [2.29ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

This Test: Pattern Mode/Cycle - Sample Accurate Midi Clock Sync

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
5998/ 6009/ 6002/ 5997/ 6009/ 6003/ 5993/ 6013/ 6003/ 5994/ 5983/ 5999/ 6014/ 5991/ 5983/ 6003

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
23 Samples [0.50ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

This Test: Song Mode - Sample Accurate Midi Clock Sync

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
5993/ 6001/ 6020/ 5985/ 5996/ 6001/ 6011/ 5999/ 6016/ 5991/ 5998/ 6001/ 6009/ 6000/ 6020/ 5986

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
34 Samples [0.71ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

Modcan 24B Boolean Logic Module

Test Date:13.12.11

This Test: Trigger Input to Function Output

AND = Zero samples (0.00ms)
OR = Zero samples (0.00ms)
XOR = Zero samples (0.00ms)
Invert = Zero samples (0.00ms)

Litmus Ranking: 

Tama Techstar TSQ-1000 Drum Sequencer/OS Version 1.00

Test Date:12.12.11

This Test: Internal Sync

Number of samples [44.1 kHz] between consecutive Quarter Notes:
23933/ 24033/ 23938/ 23943/ 24028/ 23938/ 23938/ 24038/ 23933/ 23939/ 24032/ 23943/ 23933/ 24033/ 23938/ 23943

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Quarter Note intervals:
104 Samples [2.36ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

This Test: External Sample Accurate Din-Sync

Number of samples [44.1 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
5583/ 5488/ 5487/ 5488/ 5583/ 5487/ 5488/ 5488/ 5582/ 5488/ 5488/ 5488/ 5583/ 5583/ 5488/ 5488

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteen Note intervals:
96 Samples [2.18ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

Summary: Very precise push-pull of around 100 samples regardless of internal or external sync. A potentially brilliant analogue sequencer let down by poor OS coding and another example that proves once again that a sequencer manufactured in the mid-80s with Din-Sync input and analogue pulse outputs does not always provide tight timing.

UREI 964 Digital Metronome

Test Date:18.06.07

Note: Tempo on the 964 is set in Frames Per Beat rather than more common BPM and therefore precise decimal Tempo setting is not possible for some values. Again, what is significant is the interval variance rather than the numerical average value.

Number of samples [44.1 kHz] between consecutive quarter notes:
22033/ 22033/ 22033/ 22033/ 22033/ 22033/ 22033/ 22033/ 22033/ 22033/ 22033/ 22033/ 22033/ 22033/ 22033/ 22033

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Quarter Note intervals:
Zero Samples [0.00ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

Akai MPC-3000/OS Version Vailixi 3.50T3

Mansell-Labs Web - http://www.mansell-labs.com/ 

Test Date:17.02.12

This Test: Pattern Mode/Cycle - Internal Sync

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
5999/ 5999/ 6000/ 5999/ 5999/ 5999/ 5999/ 6000/ 6000/ 5999/ 6000/ 6002/ 5997/ 5999/ 6000/ 5999

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
5 Samples [0.10ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

This Test: Song Mode - Internal Sync

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
6000/ 5999/ 6000/ 6001/ 5998/ 6001/ 5998/ 6000/ 6000/ 5999/ 5999/ 6000/ 5999/ 5999/ 5999// 5999

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
3 Samples [0.06ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

This Test: Pattern Mode/Cycle - Sample Accurate Midi Clock Sync

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
6000/ 6001/ 6004/ 5995/ 5995/ 6006/ 6000/ 6000/ 5998/ 6004/ 5991/ 6002/ 6003/ 6005/ 5992/ 6000

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
13 Samples [0.27ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

This Test: Song Mode - Sample Accurate Midi Clock Sync

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
6001/ 5998/ 5998/ 6004/ 6001/ 5999/ 5999/ 6009/ 5994/ 6001/ 6006/ 5997/ 6001/ 5999/ 6002/ 6002

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
15 Samples [0.31ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

Akai MPC-60 MK1/OS Virmana 3.15B5

 http://www.mansell-labs.com/ 

Test Date:17.02.12

This Test: Pattern Mode/Cycle - Internal Sync

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
6007/ 5993/ 6008/ 5992/ 6008/ 5992/ 6008/ 5993/ 6007/ 5993/ 6009/ 5991/ 6009/ 5993/ 6004/ 5993

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
18 Samples [0.37ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

This Test: Song Mode - Internal Sync

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
6008/ 5993/ 6007/ 5993/ 6009/ 5991/ 6009/ 5991/ 6009/ 5993/ 6007/ 5993/ 6008/ 5992/ 6008/ 5992

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
18 Samples [0.37ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

This Test: Pattern Mode/Cycle - Sample Accurate Midi Clock Sync

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
5993/ 6000/ 5990/ 6017/ 5993/ 6006/ 5986/ 6008/ 5999/ 6009/ 5984/ 6007/ 6000/ 6009/ 5993/ 6000

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
25 Samples [0.52ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

This Test: Song Mode - Sample Accurate Midi Clock Sync

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
5990/ 6007/ 6000/ 6002/ 5992/ 6004/ 6002/ 6004/ 5988/ 6007/ 6000/ 6005/ 6000/ 5992/ 6000/ 6007

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
19 Samples [0.40ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

Roland MC-4B

Test Date: 18.02.12

This Test: Cycle/Channel 1 Gate Pulse Output - Internal Tempo Generator (note:the MC-4B uses an analogue oscillator for internal tempo control and 120 BPM is a guide only - the important data is the variance of the values around the mean/average)

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenths Notes:
6101/ 6125/ 6100/ 6113/ 6110/ 6110/ 6111/ 6113/ 6121/ 6104/ 6125/ 6100/ 6112/ 6110/ 6112/ 6111

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Quarter Note intervals:
25 Samples [0.52ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

This Test: Cycle - Sample Accurate External Din-Sync

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
5999/ 5999/ 6008/ 5992/ 5995/ 6007/ 6000/ 5996/ 5999/ 6002/ 6018/ 5984/ 5999/ 6002/ 6000/ 6008

Maximum variance between consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
34 Samples [0.71ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

Garfield Electronics MiniDoc

Test Date: 03.11.07

This Test: Urei 964 Audio Click generating output trigger pulse in real-time.

Maximum variation between input audio and output pulse trigger:
Zero Samples [0.00ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

Elektron Machine Drum SPS-1MKIIUW/OS = Version 1.62

Test Date: 18.02.12

This Test:- GND IMP Sixteenths - Internal Sync

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
6060/ 5991/ 6025/ 5956/ 6026/ 5956/ 6025/ 5991/ 5991/ 5991/ 6025/ 5991/ 5991/ 5991/ 5991/ 6095

Maximum variance between consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
104 Samples [2.17ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

This Test: GND IMP Sixteenths - Sample Accurate Midi Clock Sync

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
5991/6095/ 5956/ 6026/ 5956/ 6026/ 5956/ 6026/ 5991/ 5991/ 5991/ 6026/ 5991/ 5991/ 5991/5991

Maximum variance between consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
104 Samples [2.17ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

Roland SH-101

Test Date:15.11.07

Test A: Internal Step Sequencer clocked via Ext.Clock Input from Garfield MiniDoc. VCA set to [Gate], Sawtooth VCO at full level, Filter wide open with zero resonance. The numbers represent the number of samples between source trigger pulse and the generated audio from the SH-101. The offset measurments taken by recording an analogue (no latency) split from the Garfield reference Click Pulse and the SH-101 triggered notes to a stereo audio capture in Sound Forge 9 at 16/44.1 hard panned Left/Right respectively.

Number of samples [44.1 kHz] between Trigger Input and Audio Output:
203/ 214/ 230/ 243/ 253/ 280/ 167/ 177/ 189/ 203/ 219/ 227/ 250/ 251/ 265/ 274/ 174/ 188/ 199/ 218/ 225/ 239

Minimum external trigger lag to open VCA via internal Sequencer:
167 Samples [3.79 ms]

Maximum external trigger lag to open VCA via internal Sequencer:
274 Samples [6.21 ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

Test B: Identical reference Clock Pulse Input from Garfield MiniDoc but patched directly to the SH-101 External Gate Input jack and bypassing the on-board sequencer. VCA set to [Gate], Sawtooth VCO at full level, Filter wide open with zero resonance. The numbers represent the number of samples between source trigger pulse and the generated audio from the SH-101. The offset measurements taken by recording an analogue (no latency) split from the Garfield reference Click Pulse and the SH-101 triggered notes to a stereo audio capture in Sound Forge 9 at 16/44.1 hard panned Left/Right respectively.

Number of samples [44.1 kHz] between Trigger Input and Audio Output:
12/ 14/ 12/ 12/ 13/ 12/ 14/ 12/ 12/ 12/ 11/ 14/ 12/ 13/ 14/ 12/ 12/ 14/ 13/ 14

Minimum external trigger lag to open VCA via Gate Input:
11 Samples [0.25 ms]

Maximum external trigger lag to open VCA via Gate Input:
14 Samples [0.32 ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

LinnDrum LM2

Test Date: 18.02.12

This Test: Pattern Mode/Cycle - Internal Sync (note:the LinnDrum uses an analogue oscillator for internal tempo control and 120 BPM is a guide only - the important data is the variance of the values around the mean/average)

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
6032/ 6002/ 6025/ 6030/ 6032/ 6002/ 6027/ 6027/ 6033/ 6005/ 6024/ 6028/ 6032/ 6005/ 6024/ 6030

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
30 Samples [0.62ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

This Test: External Sample Accurate 48 PPQ Pulse-Sync

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
6002/ 6008/ 6007/ 5982/ 6003/ 6007/ 6007/ 5985/ 6002/ 6007/ 6005/ 5985/ 6002/ 6007/ 6006/ 5983

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
25 Samples [0.52ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

Roland R-8 MkI

Test Date: 21.07.10

This Test: Internal Sync - Pattern Mode - Cycle - Rim Shot - 120 BPM

Number of samples [44.1 kHz] between Trigger Input and Audio Output:
22061/ 21951/ 22031/ 22098/ 22045/ 22061/ 22022/ 21999/ 22048/ 22060/ 22034/ 22094/ 21961/ 22048/ 22044/ 22102]

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Quarter Note intervals:
133 Samples [3.02 ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

Roland CR-8000

Test Date: 22.11.07

This Test: Programmed quarter note Cow Bell hits. Internal Sync at 120 BPM as reported by the Tempo LED display.

Number of samples [44.1 kHz] between Trigger Input and Audio Output:
22087/ 22070/ 22161/ 22099/ 22086/ 22077/ 22107/ 22188/ 22071/ 22078/ 22085/ 22174/ 22056/ 22170/ 22076/ 22121

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Quarter Note intervals:
118 Samples [2.68ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

Roland CR-8000

This Test: Identical programmed quarter note Cow Bell hits. External Din-Sync at 120 BPM as set by Friend-Chip Mark I SRC [Maximum clock drift +/- 1 sample].

Number of samples [44.1 kHz] between consecutive Quarter Notes:
22082/ 21983/ 22073/ 22079/ 22082/ 21984/ 22066/ 22087/ 21991/ 22074/ 22065/ 22094/ 21986/ 22065/ 22074/ 22085

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Quarter Note intervals:
108 Samples [2.45 ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

Roland TR-808

Test Date: 26.3.07

This Test: Rim Shot Individual Output and Tempo Gen. External Din-Sync from Friend-Chip SRC Mark 1 at 120 BPM

Number of samples [44.1 kHz] between consecutive Quarter Notes:
22000/ 22086/ 22083/ 22004/ 22088/ 22004/ 22084/ 22081/ 22003/ 22082/ 22005/ 22077/ 22090/ 22003/ 22082/ 22081

Maximum variation between any two consecutive Quarter Note intervals:
87 Samples [1.97ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

Roland TR-909 Version 1.00

Test Date: 26.01.12

This Test:- Rim Shot Sixteenths - Internal Sync

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
5333/ 5547/ 5549/ 5498/ 5491/ 5682/ 5496/ 5492/ 5481/ 5682/ 5492/ 5534/ 5554/ 5532/ 5554/ 5554

Maximum variance between consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
214 Samples [4.46ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

This Test:- Rim Shot Sixteenths - External Sample Accurate Din-Sync

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
5999/ 6005/ 5983/ 6005/ 5832/ 6057/ 6080/ 6038/ 5841/ 6148/ 5905/ 6028/ 5987/ 6060/ 5969/ 6028

Maximum variance between consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
307 Samples [6.40ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

This Test:- Rim Shot Sixteenths - External Sample Accurate Midi Clock

Number of samples [48 kHz] between consecutive Sixteenth Notes:
5969/ 6064/ 6034/ 6037/ 5896/ 5939/ 6092/ 6005/ 6059/ 5819/ 6188/ 5814/ 6181/ 6001/ 5822/ 6171

Maximum variance between consecutive Sixteenth Note intervals:
374 Samples [7.79ms]

Litmus Ranking: 

'Always note the sequencer. It will never let us down'

Rage Hard - Frankie Goes to Hollywood - ZTT - ZCiD22

All material on this website copyright 2004-2012 Innerclock Systems Pty Ltd unless otherwise indicated.

No text or image may be reproduced in part or in full without prior written consent.

This site is best viewed using Google Chrome.