Hacker News Reader

Comment by JodieBenitez | Hacker News Reader

Probably not on this album.

More than likely they did, sync boxes have been around for a long time, they're not that expensive (would have been in the hundreds of dollars or euro at the time), and Daft Punk could surely have bought or borrowed one if they wanted. I was just having a chuckle at the blog author's idealism about how well sync works in the real world. If they were using MIDI, the standard allows for a 1% timing variance at the hardware level (not 1% of 1 beat, 1% of the tempo). I would guess Daft Punk were more likely using old 'classic' synths with control voltage, which is often a bit more reliable.

Why not? It’s a common equipment and it’s not count as "digital device forbidden in analog studio" as you connect synth directly to it, just to make sure that your front waves are in sync

First, it's not that common. These are specialized tools you won't find in every producers tool belt. Not everyone cares that much about midi clock accuracy or many people will just circumvent the problem. Also, like homework, Discovery is very much a homestudio album, recorded at Bangalter's place. That's not what "top electronic studios" are. Ultimately we don't know and this whole thread is like seeing pictures in clouds to me.

Actually, it is very common - the DAW is usually used as the master clock to external devices such as drum machines, sequencers and synths with onboard arpeggiators/sequencers, and the DAW is itself commonly synced to the high end clocks in a decent quality audio interface, which do not have as much jitter these days as most folks seem to think. Even in the 90’s, this was a feature of many audio interface and DAW rigs. Bangalter was not known for having cheap gear.

> audio interface, which do not have as much jitter these days

But it's not about audio jitter.

Anyway, like I said, too much speculation in this thread.

It’s about MIDI jitter, and if the MIDI clock is locked to the audio clock, its going to be pretty darn good.

That's a big "if". And then there is the jitter induced by the gear receiving the clock. Many drum machines are bad there. See https://innerclocksystems.com/litmus/

It’s really not a big if, it’s currently an actual reality of modern audio interface/DAW configurations. Very few modern audio interfaces do not have MID clock very tightly bound to their audio clock, which is the master clock with far greater accuracy, anyway.

Yes, MIDI jitter can be compounded on the receiving end - but having a very tightly bound MIDI clock to the audio clock can negate a lot of those issues upstream in the first place, and that is precisely why you get a good audio interface that does this anyway.

(Disclaimer: have worked in pro audio product development for decades, have written drivers for exactly this use-case, and I have personally been in the trenches to fight the myths about Audio and MIDI jitter as a developer for a long time now..)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com