# Do You Ever Quantize?



## Rodney Money (Oct 29, 2015)

Do you ever have parts of your renderings that sound better quantized? When would you choose to quantize instead of a rubato performance?

More information: Thank you all for your wonderful responses. It is an absolute joy to hear how others work to achieve their craft! Here is a quick melody performed on flute to see which one people prefer. The first time is quantized and plugged in via midi bounced from Finale and the second time is me performing the flute via midi controller live. I have a few huge projects that I'm working on at the moment and for this particular piece I am trying to figure out which method is going to work best for the rendering. https://app.box.com/s/8mxufvyw0czgyqgsshwlne55fhpwto08


----------



## BenG (Oct 29, 2015)

Yes, I do!

I tend to quantize ostinato figures with some humanization (8 or 9). I find it really tightens up certain parts and can clarify you overall mix. It obviously is not as real or natural as a unaltered performance, however imo difference is negligible. I feel the note velocities and lengths are much more important and should be left untouched for the most part. 

I'm also a firm believer in having 'clean' midi parts for easier editing while I'm writing the piece and if need be, later on/revisited.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Oct 29, 2015)

I always quantize but that's mostly because of the timing issues in Cubase where it doesn't correctly record in time.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 29, 2015)

I quantize all the time, but rarely ever "hard" quantize. I use Logic's Q-Strength and Q-Range settings to get it just sounding well executed but not rigid.


----------



## PhJ (Oct 29, 2015)

There shouldn't be any timing issue in Cubase..? (unless the latency is very high)
Sorry if I'm asking the obvious, but are you arming the 'Delay Compensation' button before recording ?








Back to the thread, I do use quantize depending on the material [perc, ostinati, ..] (with the new iQ in Cubase, moving it progressively closer to the grid), some stuff I leave untouched.


----------



## jacobthestupendous (Oct 29, 2015)

It depends on what I'm trying to record, how good I am at playing it, and the timing of the actual note sound in the samples. If I quantize something like percussion or a melody/harmony line, I'll only quantize around 80% to leave room for a bit of humanity (also, with percussion this avoids stacking transients of similar instruments and helps it sound bigger without slamming the comp threshold quite so badly).

I'll quantize the timing closely on very fast notes that are conspicuous if the timing is not precise, like in ostinato figures, but I'll leave healthy variance in velocity and length, like BenG. 

Working in Logic, if I ever intended to attempt to print notation out of it, I would definitely hard quantize the dickens out of all note starts and lengths.


----------



## pmcrockett (Oct 29, 2015)

I never quantize, and I also typically record to custom tempo maps that aren't locked to a rigid tempo. I just use my ears and manually scoot individual notes or groups of notes around as necessary without paying much attention to the grid. I also like to make sure my articulations are all assigned before I move notes around too much, because different articulations have different attack lengths that affect the perceived timing of notes.


----------



## pmountford (Oct 29, 2015)

Would love to say NO and that my keyboard skills are fantastic, but the truth is YES I do quantize (Human) and sadly I don't have fantastic keyboard skills. (But I can press that 'Q' button repeatedly very quickly )


----------



## Guffy (Oct 29, 2015)

I don't even have to quantize. That's how much i quantize.
I have 2 keyboards infront of me, but over the years, i've developed this habit of clicking notes into the piano roll and "humanize" it afterwards. It's faster than if i'd try to play it and quantize afterwards.


----------



## chillbot (Oct 29, 2015)

Now days seems like almost everyone has HD TVs and killer sound systems. Don't think it matters as much. But 10-15 years ago if you were writing for TV, "flams" that you might not notice on your nearfield monitors would sound noticeably ugly on a tiny TV speaker, especially if mono. So I still run a tight ship regarding drums and bass, probably too much so.


----------



## chrysshawk (Oct 30, 2015)

Does it sound better? Yes, then I quantise.


----------



## mverta (Oct 30, 2015)

No. The devil is in the imperfect details.


----------



## soundethers (Oct 31, 2015)

I always quantize when working with lopps and synced lfo or similar stuff... 
I never quantize whenn playing freely. 
Of course, too much quantization can be disturbing, but it depends on the genres e.g. Techno should sound better when everything is intelligently quantized.


----------



## Anders Wall (Oct 31, 2015)

soundethers said:


> Techno should sound better when everything is intelligently quantized.


Techno would sound different if nothing were quantized.
Best,
/Anders


----------



## Saxer (Oct 31, 2015)

WallofSound said:


> Techno would sound different if nothing were quantized.
> Best,
> /Anders


You mean when they click notes into the piano roll without having a grid?


----------



## Simon Ravn (Oct 31, 2015)

All the time if I do "Zimmer like stuff" or percussion-heavy music. Then I sometimes "humanize" some of it to get it a little looser. It's much easier to start out with quantizing and having it tight and then untighten it later if you need to.


----------



## re-peat (Oct 31, 2015)

Simon Ravn said:


> It's much easier to start out with quantizing and having it tight and then untighten it later if you need to.


Except that many a 'shorts'-, spiccato- or staccato-patch sounds a lot less tight after quantizing than before.


----------



## Baron Greuner (Oct 31, 2015)

Rodney Money said:


> Do you ever have parts of your renderings that sound better quantized? When would you choose to quantize instead of a rubato performance?



There's a lot of different levels of quantising as everyone has more or less alluded to. Depends on what you're doing. I have to do a second iteration of a solo piano track today and have strict orders just to play it in and absolutely no quantising. Which you shouldn't do with that type of thing anyway imo.

If you're doing orchestral work and you can get away without quantising, then I would say do so. That said, very good orchestral players stay in time very well BUT if it were technically/hypothetically possible to somehow see one of your favourite live orchestral performances as a midi file, it would look like a mess compared to a sample performance. But it wouldn't really be a mess, because for a live orchestra that would be correct and probably _incorrect_ for samples.

But this is sampleland and the rules to how things sound in sample land are not really applicable when compared to live orchestral playing (could be rock, jazz etc). With samples, it's all about getting it to sound good and if that takes some quantising, or pulling things into shape on the grid then anything goes. In short, you program a sampled performance; you don't really program a live one. That's more about mixing, balance, good players and room sound etc.

This to me is the trouble with comparing sampleland and live playing. Entirely different things altogether.

I'm a pretty good keyboard player, but keyboards can be sluggish and dull things compared to a good real piano keyboard. Ergo, even if you can play really well and in (your) time (as opposed to a click), keyboards linked into a computer even with a _really small_ amount of lag, can get mushy.


----------



## IFM (Oct 31, 2015)

I quantize shorts or certain things...and use iQ and leave a range that is untouched so my intention is to only get them closer to the mark...unless it is a synth sequence that is supposed to be dead on.
It all depends on what I need it to do...so this always has the same answer. "It depends..."
Chris


----------



## Rctec (Oct 31, 2015)

re-peat said:


> Except that many a 'shorts'-, spiccato- or staccato-patch sounds a lot less tight after quantizing than before.


..legate because people don't know how to cut samples properly... I can't stand that in a lot of commercial libraries..


----------



## givemenoughrope (Oct 31, 2015)

If you're going for precision and speed Ive found that LASS and Spitfire are good. I really like 8dio though for looser, softer stuff. There's a bounce to that I find really inspiring. I think you have to put the dots wherever they feel the best though. 

The thing I'm puzzled about is how stiff film scores and dance music can feel bc they were mapped to one tempo for long periods. The modern DAW sequencer can map every beat. I do understand the players hearing the click and then anticipating the next beat and DJs wanting to look up a bpm/key to make a DJ set though.


----------



## scarred bunny (Oct 31, 2015)

If you want a flowing rubato tempo, you can still get that via tempo automation, even if the notes themselves are quantized to the grid.

Whether to quantize or not, I think, depends mostly on the context - what effect you're trying to achieve. And what instrument you're using. There's many patches out there that are plenty loose even when hard-quantized. 

Most of my notes are programmed by mouse. Sometimes dead on the grid, sometimes with relative offsets to the grid where appropriate (slow attacks, slow transitions, deliberate injection of slop, avoiding transient stacking, or whatever it is). I do most of that manually so I can control what's going on. I don't generally like just randomizing the timing to get a 'human feel' because I don't find that very human (nor do I find sample libraries very human, for better or worse). But I figure the most important thing is to do whatever you do with purpose and direction.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Oct 31, 2015)

scarred bunny said:


> If you want a flowing rubato tempo, you can still get that via tempo automation, even if the notes themselves are quantized to the grid.



How do you go about this? I usually get a tempo from another track (the temp) or I just play a hihat and hum. Then I drag every bar or beat to that. i use Cubase.


----------



## scarred bunny (Oct 31, 2015)

I usually start by programming the notes or playing them in to a click (not necessarily everything - sometimes just the lead or most prominent elements for starters), and then just draw in automation curves in the tempo track editor - either free-hand or by using linear automation ramps, and then adjust it back and forth until it sounds right. Occasionally if the tempo changes are drastic enough I'll have to go back and readjust some of the notes to get the attacks and transitions just right. 

Sometimes I'll play in a guide track and adjust the tempo map to fit that performance (by adjusting the bar lines and beats), and play/program everything to fit that. 

The above tends to produce better results for me anyway, but I'm also a terrible player and a slightly less terrible programmer. I just find it very difficult to record all the necessary takes and overdubs to a free-flowing tempo even with a click (it's easier to play with someone who's actually in the room, because you get visual cues from each other and whatnot), and I usually just get a sloppy mess at the end. But I imagine most here are much better players than I am - if you can do it all live, it's probably faster, easier and gets you much of the nuance for free.


----------



## soundethers (Oct 31, 2015)

WallofSound said:


> Techno would sound different if nothing were quantized.
> Best,
> /Anders


It's a matter of taste. Personally, I love less quantized music, but sometimes I like this choice, especially with rhythmics made of unregular glitch drum samples.


----------



## tomaslobosk (Oct 31, 2015)

Rctec said:


> ..legate because people don't know how to cut samples properly... I can't stand that in a lot of commercial libraries..


I couldn't agree more... spiccato patches are a major pain in the a** if the cutting process wasn't done properly.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of developers forget that the loudest part of the samples should be always in sync with each other... doing it by ear is also a good idea.
Also, I tend to see that some developers don't let the samples breathe in... IMHO it's wrong to cut the attack of the samples to achieve a tight spiccato performance, since it's only a timing issue.


----------



## samphony (Oct 31, 2015)

Rctec said:


> ..legate because people don't know how to cut samples properly... I can't stand that in a lot of commercial libraries..


So so true!


----------



## reddognoyz (Oct 31, 2015)

I saw a video with Mike Piatti from Cinesamples, he was quantizing one of his instruments. He noted where they sat on the grid in a general sense when he played them, then he quantized, then moved them back to where they were played. It is a neat solution to getting the downbeat of the sample on the downbeat.


----------



## afterlight82 (Oct 31, 2015)

Quantize most note starts pretty tightly, and frankly you can have a sequence of top notch samples pretty much dead on without it sounding odd. The variance in sample editing, speed of legato changes, etc. tends to give enough "looseness" to simulate real players (good ones) who generally play surprisingly tightly to click. If you're transferring to midi into sibelius to have it played live, you can save a lot of time just quantizing as you go and being careful on note ends. Will leave sections of certain solo lead lines unquantized or just sections, but if you have an interior viola part with good round robins or at least a little "variance" in the editing it's so much easier just to lock it down. The reality is you can quantize a surprising amount and have it still sound really great, I've always thought the quantizing thing was far more noticeable in the days of roland sound canvas and synth recreations of instruments vs samples being the norm. Quantize a synthetic general midi drum kit and it'll sound terrible. Quantize most decent sample instruments, especially well programmed ones, and it usually sounds fine. The exceptions are anything that's really hyper exposed or anything where the rhythm is repetitive, where repeated triggers might sound mechanical...


----------



## LondonMike (Oct 31, 2015)

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Cutting and pasting sections or parts can be a pain when they're not quantised. I find Logic's humanise is pretty good too. 
I often play the notes in with quantise switched off and then quantise parts if I'm going to cut and paste and afterwards undo quantise.
Certainly some samples 'speak' late and notes need to be moved to before the beats.
Basically, as with all aspects of production, whatever sounds best for any given passage, phrase or part.


----------



## 1982m (Oct 31, 2015)

Same here, whichever method gives me the best or desired results.
I'll also slide events a few ticks +/- from others. Editing, tweaking velocities can also result with more natural sounding phrasing too. Sometimes that's more of the problem than strict quantizing.


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 31, 2015)

LondonMike said:


> Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Cutting and pasting sections or parts can be a pain when they're not quantised. I find Logic's humanise is pretty good too.
> I often play the notes in with quantise switched off and then quantise parts if I'm going to cut and paste and afterwards undo quantise.
> Certainly some samples 'speak' late and notes need to be moved to before the beats.
> Basically, as with all aspects of production, whatever sounds best for any given passage, phrase or part.


I use Cubase and do this: I stretch the part longer, where the midi is inside, maybe to the next bar and then copy and paste it to a new track (Cubase makes a new track automatically when I move the part). In this way it works perfect for me.


----------



## H.R. (Nov 1, 2015)

In Studio One, I quantize then I "Humanize Less" it.


----------



## Rodney Money (Nov 2, 2015)

PhJ said:


> There shouldn't be any timing issue in Cubase..? (unless the latency is very high)
> Sorry if I'm asking the obvious, but are you arming the 'Delay Compensation' button before recording ?
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you! I did know about this. Here is a stupid question, when it is grey like your picture is it on or off?


----------



## Rodney Money (Nov 2, 2015)

Thank you all for your wonderful responses. It is an absolute joy to hear how others work to achieve their craft. Here is a quick melody performed on flute to see which one people prefer. The first time is quantized and plugged in via midi bounced from Finale and the second time is me performing the flute via midi controller live. I have a few huge projects that I'm working on at the moment and for this particular piece I am trying to figure out which method is going to work best for the rendering. https://app.box.com/s/8mxufvyw0czgyqgsshwlne55fhpwto08


----------



## DocMidi657 (Nov 2, 2015)

Rodney Money said:


> Thank you all for your wonderful responses. It is an absolute joy to hear how others work to achieve their craft. Here is a quick melody performed on flute to see which one people prefer. The first time is quantized and plugged in via midi bounced from Finale and the second time is me performing the flute via midi controller live. I have a few huge projects that I'm working on at the moment and for this particular piece I am trying to figure out which method is going to work best for the rendering. https://app.box.com/s/8mxufvyw0czgyqgsshwlne55fhpwto08


I liked number 2 Rodney. Very nice melody btw!


----------



## Rodney Money (Nov 2, 2015)

DocMidi657 said:


> I liked number 2 Rodney. Very nice melody btw!


Thank you, my for the response and thank you for the reassurance of the melody.


----------



## synthpunk (Nov 2, 2015)

Here is a askaudio article about using Q-range in Logic X for more effective quantizing
https://ask.audio/articles/quantizing-in-logic-pro-x-how-to-get-better-results-using-q-range


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 2, 2015)

aesthete said:


> Here is a askaudio article about using Q-range in Logic X for more effective quantizing
> https://ask.audio/articles/quantizing-in-logic-pro-x-how-to-get-better-results-using-q-range



Yes, but you also want to employ Q-Strength for the best results IMHO.


----------



## Rodney Money (Nov 2, 2015)

How about if you are using Cubase?


----------



## Carbs (Nov 2, 2015)

re-peat said:


> Except that many a 'shorts'-, spiccato- or staccato-patch sounds a lot less tight after quantizing than before.



Yep. Huge spitfire audio fan, but quantizing their short notes many times leads to anything but a tight performance.


----------



## Rodney Money (Nov 2, 2015)

Carbs said:


> Yep. Huge spitfire audio fan, but quantizing their short notes many times leads to anything but a tight performance.


How so? This confuses me. I only have one Spitfire library.


----------



## Carbs (Nov 2, 2015)

Same reason HZ gave.


*edit

Also - I think some samples are just plain out of time. I absolutely cannot remember the specific library (I have mural sable and all the albions but 2) but last week when programming either a bass or cello part I had to adjust a short note one full quarter note ahead of time to get it where it needed to be. 

I try to keep records for the developers but I was in a hurry, so forgot to write the offending instrument and note down.


----------



## Rodney Money (Nov 2, 2015)

Carbs said:


> Same reason HZ gave.


I don't know anything about sampling or recording, what would be the best way to cut a short articulation that is already "small."


----------



## Carbs (Nov 2, 2015)

Rodney Money said:


> I don't know anything about sampling or recording, what would be the best way to cut a short articulation that is already "small."



I don't create or edit samples either. Many times a company will cut the beginning of a short so that it's nice and tight sounding. The only downside is it may sound less natural. 

Spitfire doesn't want to chop off the beginning of their samples, they want the entire sound of the bow on the string. So they leave a little "air" or whatever you would call it at the beginning of the samples. 

I just think some notes have a little more of this than others. So it can be a problem, but it's one I deal with because at the end of the day I prefer the spitfire sound.


----------



## PhJ (Nov 3, 2015)

Rodney Money said:


> Thank you! I did know about this. Here is a stupid question, when it is grey like your picture is it on or off?



It turns orange when it's ON (and latency inducing effects are bypassed)


----------



## Guffy (Nov 3, 2015)

A poor performance to begin with can also make things harder to deal with.
What i really don't like is when some of the round robins are really tight, while others aren't. Then they give us an offset knob to fix the problem ourselves, which don't really help, because - it makes some of the samples sound really unnatural and weird with too much of the attack cut off. IMO, It would be a better solution to have them all loose then, so you can make up for it by dragging the entire performance a few ms before the grid.


----------



## Kejero (Nov 3, 2015)

Yeah some libraries have really poor RR implementation, turning them virtually (ha) unusable. It's like dealing with an amateur musician, who just never seems to be able to get one good take.

But like a few people have already mentioned, if you need to quantize for any reason (say spic/stac strings), you'll often need to drag the entire part a few ms to the left afterwards. If you have samples that don't require this because they're so tight, it would surprise me if they could ever sound any good to begin with, no matter how well you play them. An actual violin player will start bowing ahead of the beat too.
Finally, divisi and layering with some humization on every instrument will help tremendously too.


----------

