Set BPM/tempo to a tenth of a number (or at least a half)

the OP explained why it would make his life easier while being aware of the available work arounds.
Just let him have his wish list item without explaining to him why he doesn't need it.
others are allowed to explain why it would be a detriment to them.

maybe i'll start a wish thread that says "reduce number of amps to 10" and get mad when people disagree with me. :) just let me have my wish that might be implemented!
 
others are allowed to explain why it would be a detriment to them...

Valid point, and you were doing exactly that with legitimate concerns. But some of the other posters were simply discounting the idea as unnecessary, useless, or somehow humanly impossible.
 
others are allowed to explain why it would be a detriment to them.

maybe i'll start a wish thread that says "reduce number of amps to 10" and get mad when people disagree with me. :) just let me have my wish that might be implemented!

you are correct, that is exactly the same
 
I work in 1/10th BPM tempos all the time when matching MIDI to live recordings. In my experience, when it comes to effects, decimal tempos are not needed. You'll never hear any difference by adding this level of precision. The only case I can think of where this would be relevant is that of using long quantized loops, where the difference multiplies, especially at slower tempos. (4 bars at 52.5 vs 52 = a difference of 176 ms.)

A better case for sub-BPM adjustment is changing the feel of effects to rush or lag ever so slightly. In this case, you already have the tools to do this: MASTER TIME and MASTER RATE controls appear in many places.
 
Last edited:
I’m still lost on why milliseconds can’t be set in the delays (vs. beats and fractional beats)? Didn’t the Egde do this for years? Alex Lifeson too?

Wouldn’t it be a simple conversion or an I missing something fundamental?

(I know when setting the flanger I often go to 1.7, 1.8 or 2.2 milliseconds for lagging one side. There that kind of precision makes a huge difference in tonality.)
 
Also getting a lot of songs lately that are .5 something... Yeah, probably doesn't matter that much... but why not ask anyway...

I would be happy to have everything tempo related stay the same (front panel, tap tempo, etc...) and just have an advanced option to enter this manually via axe-edit and save it for the few presets that need it.
 
I’m still lost on why milliseconds can’t be set in the delays (vs. beats and fractional beats)? Didn’t the Egde do this for years? Alex Lifeson too?
you can set milliseconds as long as you aren't also setting it by Tempo. Tempo needs to be set to none, then adjust the milliseconds all you want.

if you know the tempo your song is at, there's no need for Tap Tempo or Tempo settings in the delay block. just set it exactly how you want it with milliseconds. but you can't do both as it would make no sense.
 
I’d be interested in hearing an example of say a track at 120.5 BPM and a dotted 1/8 note delay at 120 BPM.
 
+1 on the decimal tempos. Other equipment has the capability, and when trying to sync up with an existing track or sequence, it doesn't take many bars for an unhearable difference to be multiplied cumulatively into a quite obvious difference....
 
I’d be interested in hearing an example of say a track at 120.5 BPM and a dotted 1/8 note delay at 120 BPM.
For a single or two repeats, this would likely be virtually unnoticeable, due to being less than half a percent difference. If perceivable at all, it would 'feel' a bit 'rushed' (as opposed to a 121BPM delay on a 120.5BPM tempo feeling 'laid back'). 'Feel' for timing, especially with percussive instruments, lives in these sub-millisecond time frames.

The percent difference between 60 and 60.5 BPM will, of couse, be twice as large as the above.
 
For a single or two repeats, this would likely be virtually unnoticeable, due to being less than half a percent difference. If perceivable at all, it would 'feel' a bit 'rushed' (as opposed to a 121BPM delay on a 120.5BPM tempo feeling 'laid back'). 'Feel' for timing, especially with percussive instruments, lives in these sub-millisecond time frames.

The percent difference between 60 and 60.5 BPM will, of course, be twice as large as the above.
THIS.

If you're playing at tempo 200 with a single-repeat eighth-note delay, the time between the note and the echo is 0.15 seconds. For tempo 200.5, the time would be 0.1496 seconds. That's 4/10ths of a millisecond's worth of difference. Maybe Steve Vai, with his, uh, amusing sensitivity to modeler latency (* cough *), can hear that difference. But ain't nobody else who can!

But, if you're playing at tempo 50 with a four-repeat quarter-note delay, the time between the note and the first echo is 1.2 seconds. If it's tempo 50.5, the time would be 1.1881 seconds. That's a difference of 0.0119 seconds, or 11.9 milliseconds; and that's just the difference in where the echo will land on the first repeat. The difference will increase by that amount on each repeat, so, by the fourth repeat, you'll be almost 50 milliseconds off. Anyone, from Lil' Wayne to your pitch-deaf uncle who claps on the 1 & 3, will feel that as a "stumble in the beat."

A more moderate example, falling between these two, can be heard in the echo on Phil Collins' voice in his famous "In The Air Tonight," when he sings, "...the first time, the last time, we ever met .. met .. met .. met...." Having it out-of-synch on that vocal is a nifty effect. But imagine how distracting it'd be if you didn't want it!

Consequently, there is a real use for fine-tuned tempos. The need for it is felt more...
  • at slower tempos
  • with longer delay note-values
  • with more repeats
  • when playing with loops and sequences, click-tracks, etc.

So, to make a long story short...

(too late!)

...we should really have the fine-tuning tempo option.
 
If implemented, what about those who use tap-tempo? How do they consistently tap 100 bpm or whatever the desired tempo is? Do they need to settle for 100.3 or 99.8 bpm when trying to get 100? Another can of worms from the other side of the discussion.

A fine tuned tempo is achievable using the Time parameter, plenty of ms to bpm converting tools to use to get a specific bpm. A possible solution would be to have the option of the Time being shown as ms or bpm. Then, once a Tempo or subdivision is selected, it's rounded to a whole number. Of course then there's the point of how feasible it would actually be from a programming standpoint.
 
If implemented, what about those who use tap-tempo? How do they consistently tap 100 bpm or whatever the desired tempo is? Do they need to settle for 100.3 or 99.8 bpm when trying to get 100? Another can of worms from the other side of the discussion.

A fine tuned tempo is achievable using the Time parameter, plenty of ms to bpm converting tools to use to get a specific bpm. A possible solution would be to have the option of the Time being shown as ms or bpm. Then, once a Tempo or subdivision is selected, it's rounded to a whole number. Of course then there's the point of how feasible it would actually be from a programming standpoint.
Tap tempo could have a 'granularity' choice added in global settings, to round to the nearest BPM (current option, default), or to round to the decimal.
 
I would be interested to know how the Axe interprets tempos sent via MIDI from external sources. If, say, Logic Pro X sends a MIDI tempo of 100.7BPM, how does the Axe handle that?

Also, as a side question, is it possible the blink of the FC tap tempo button could be synced to an external source when tempo is sent to the Axe from wherever?
 
Tap tempo could have a 'granularity' choice added in global settings, to round to the nearest BPM (current option, default), or to round to the decimal.
Sure.

And, it makes sense that when you tap tempo, you display the resulting numeric tempo on both your Axe III screen and your FC-6/12 screen. You display it with the decimals. And you make the "fine tuning" value available either via a set of increment/decrement footswitches, or a knob.

I step over to my footswitch and tap tempo. Something feels a bit off, so I look down and see that it shows my tempo as 67.4. I know the usual tempo for this song is 68, and my band's pretty consistent, so they're probably a little faster than I am.

I could try tapping again, but, fortunately, I've assigned one of my other footswitches to "Tempo Fine-Tune Increment/Hold-to-Repeat"

So I put my foot down on that footswitch and hold it down. It begins to increment by 1/10th of a bpm per half-second. When it reaches 68 (after 3 seconds), I pull my foot back up.

Listening again, I realize that, actually, I wasn't that far off to start with; I'm now a tad faster than everyone else. I also have a "Tempo Fine-Tune Decrement/Hold-to-Repeat" button. I could hold it down for a second, but I find it easier just to tap it twice. After those two taps, I'm now at 67.8, and the echoes sound perfectly in synch.
 
Sure.

And, it makes sense that when you tap tempo, you display the resulting numeric tempo on both your Axe III screen and your FC-6/12 screen. You display it with the decimals. And you make the "fine tuning" value available either via a set of increment/decrement footswitches, or a knob.

I step over to my footswitch and tap tempo. Something feels a bit off, so I look down and see that it shows my tempo as 67.4. I know the usual tempo for this song is 68, and my band's pretty consistent, so they're probably a little faster than I am.

I could try tapping again, but, fortunately, I've assigned one of my other footswitches to "Tempo Fine-Tune Increment/Hold to Increment."

So I put my foot down on that footswitch and hold it down. It begins to increment by 1/10th of a bpm per half-second. When it reaches 68 (after 3 seconds), I pull my foot back up.
Tempo increment/decrement would be a great tool added with this. IIRC, there is a wish for it a while back, even with the whole number tempos.
 
If implemented, what about those who use tap-tempo? How do they consistently tap 100 bpm or whatever the desired tempo is? Do they need to settle for 100.3 or 99.8 bpm when trying to get 100? Another can of worms from the other side of the discussion.

I definitely understand where you’re coming from, but on the other hand - you’re also suggesting that the tempo being more accurate to your tap is a bad thing 🤷🏻‍♂️
 
I definitely understand where you’re coming from, but on the other hand - you’re also suggesting that the tempo being more accurate to your tap is a bad thing 🤷🏻‍♂️
Not at all. Kind of amusing to see conclusions people draw. I have not personally encountered the need to have a *.50 tempo. Since there is apparently a noticeable difference between, for example, 100bpm and 100.5bpm, those who play "normal" tempos will potentially have a difficult time tapping these tempos.
 
Back
Top Bottom