Dubstepforum.com

I dont mean between a 174BPM track and a 110 bpm track, but I mean the very minute different tempos.

For example, Madeon claims (without much explanation) that a 126BPM track has much more "funk" vibes to it than a 128BPM track, and at 130BPM the song, regardless of structure "loses all hope of being funky."

Dillon Francis claims something very similar (again, no explanation as to how or why). He stated that a Moombahton/Electro House track with a tempo of 112 rather than 110, and 118 rather than 120 will be much more funkier. He almost never writes in 110.


I've searched everywhere for some kind of explanation that would help me see the impact in minute tempo differences. Can anyone can elaborate on this?

I can't give any explanation, but I kinda agree with both - I do a lot of house at 126 (and 128...) and stuff at 126 has a little more vibe and flexibility vs something at 130 which always sounds so regimented. Similarly I've tried stuff at 112 vs stuff at 110 which again had a little more funk to it. It may be placebo effect, it may just be because it's slightly different it sounds "better" idk.

mthrfnk wrote:I can't give any explanation, but I kinda agree with both - I do a lot of house at 126 (and 128...) and stuff at 126 has a little more vibe and flexibility vs something at 130 which always sounds so regimented. Similarly I've tried stuff at 112 vs stuff at 110 which again had a little more funk to it. It may be placebo effect, it may just be because it's slightly different it sounds "better" idk.

I've experimented with both BPMs and I'll be honest, it's hard for me to see much difference. I want to understand this haha, I do notice some difference in the slower 100-115 range when you do very slight adjustments. 118 is a sweet spot for sure, I've definitely noticed that.

I think that your percussion and synths push a song faster than the actual bpm. if you put fast hats or some type of synth that's playing every 1/8 or something, even a lower bpm will feel really fast. Personally I've done tracks at 185 that seem slow. It's all about how you arrange your stuff. Hope I helped

edit: sorry just re-read your question. to be frank, no there is no difference between 110 and 111. anyone who claims there is is full of it. the only way people would truly notice this is for a producer to be working on some track at 112, finish it, then drop it to 110. he's the only one that would notice because he's been hearing it so much

I have found 127 to be a sweet spot before. The reason is, the slower the bpm, the more room you have to pull things off the grid and make things syncopated. But if you go too slow, it starts to lose energy. Slow and fast are both relative to the track, but there definitely are some common tempos that fit well.

Makes a huge difference IMO. And I agree with Madeon on the differences between 126, 128, and 130. World of a difference. Tempo is a HUGE factor.

Every minute little thing you do makes a world of a difference. Butterfly effect. Treat your music with respect, make everything deliberate and intentional, do everything with purpose.

I agree Claude, I figured the poster was asking about the common listener and how they would perceive such a difference. To the producer's ear vs. the average listener. I don't think there is a difference. Example:

Dustwyrm wrote:...to be frank, no there is no difference between 110 and 111. anyone who claims there is is full of it. the only way people would truly notice this is for a producer to be working on some track at 112, finish it, then drop it to 110. he's the only one that would notice because he's been hearing it so much

I dunno. I both agree and disagree. On it's own a track at 110 bpm and one at 112 bpm might seem the same, but a change in tempo that small in the midst of a track might make a difference. I was recently remixing a friends track which I initially thought was straightforward 110 bpm moombah. Later, when he sent me the stems, I discovered that the track had 2 sections with differing Bpm. The build ups and breakdowns were literally just about 2 bpm faster than the drops. As a casual listener the change in tempo was not something that was distinctly or immediately noticeable, (which is good for dancing, you wouldn't want everyone on the dancefloor feeling an awkward change) but I think it made an incredible difference in feel. The tiny increase in space between the kick drums made the whole drop feel more powerful.

In the end, perhaps a small difference in BPM is not something you can really notice without a reference point, but I do think it's something we can subconsciously feel.

It makes me wonder if this can in any way be related to the haas effect: human brain/ears can percieve a difference in sounds with seperation greater than 30 milliseconds, right? that's .030 seconds. A track at 110 bpm beats about 1.83 times per second. A track at 112 bpm beats about 1.86 times per second. That's a difference of .033333 seconds, which might actually be a discernible change. Coincidence? over-thinking? your thoughts?

I've got several thoughts on this:

Dustwyrm wrote:I think that your percussion and synths push a song faster than the actual bpm. if you put fast hats or some type of synth that's playing every 1/8 or something, even a lower bpm will feel really fast. Personally I've done tracks at 185 that seem slow. It's all about how you arrange your stuff. Hope I helped

I totally agree with this. The frequency at which the elements in a given track are played makes a larger difference IMO than the bpm. The most obvious example is dubstep itself - being a predominantly half-time genre. Most of us use 140 as the bpm, yet it feels slower than house (125-130). This is because the drums are played at half the tempo, making it feel like 70 bpm.

Triphosphate wrote:It makes me wonder if this can in any way be related to the haas effect: human brain/ears can percieve a difference in sounds with seperation greater than 30 milliseconds, right? that's .030 seconds. A track at 110 bpm beats about 1.83 times per second. A track at 112 bpm beats about 1.86 times per second. That's a difference of .033333 seconds, which might actually be a discernible change. Coincidence? over-thinking? your thoughts?

That's really interesting. I think you're right. There's probably a cutoff point where humans can no longer tell the difference when you switch a bpm at small intervals. It probably varies from human to human. Us producers can probably hear slighter differences than the average folk.

yes minor bpm changes make a huge difference. the track in my sig is 126, and i've played around with making it a little faster and slower. faster- the cowbell snare gets a little weird. not sure why but there always seems to be a sweet spot. i've also noticed HUGE perceptual differences between 140 and 145 bpm.

dubunked wrote:

Triphosphate wrote:It makes me wonder if this can in any way be related to the haas effect: human brain/ears can percieve a difference in sounds with seperation greater than 30 milliseconds, right? that's .030 seconds. A track at 110 bpm beats about 1.83 times per second. A track at 112 bpm beats about 1.86 times per second. That's a difference of .033333 seconds, which might actually be a discernible change. Coincidence? over-thinking? your thoughts?

That's really interesting. I think you're right. There's probably a cutoff point where humans can no longer tell the difference when you switch a bpm at small intervals. It probably varies from human to human. Us producers can probably hear slighter differences than the average folk.

If you take into consideration that dubstep is 140 bpm that sounds like 70 bpm, and if it's true that the average cutoff for human perception of change in bpm is .03 seconds then we know that at full speed a change of at least 2 bpm (1.8 bpm if you want to be specific) is required to create a noticeable difference... at half-speed that gap is doubled, so a change of 4 (3.6) bpm is required to create a noticeable change. Just some more food for thought... gonna test this out when I get home from my dayjob.
/overthinking

yeah, that 1.8 bpm figure is not constant for any change in bpm, that's only for that one spot. in other words, the difference between 112 and 110 bpm is different than the difference between 175 and 173 bpm.

dubunked wrote:yeah, that 1.8 bpm figure is not constant for any change in bpm, that's only for that one spot. in other words, the difference between 112 and 110 bpm is different than the difference between 175 and 173 bpm.

it's not, it's a linear change. I was doing the math... a 1 beat per minute change in tempo = .016 seconds no matter what the original bpm was. The only time 1 bpm doesn't create a change of .016 seconds is when you're dealing with half time.

Triphosphate wrote:

dubunked wrote:yeah, that 1.8 bpm figure is not constant for any change in bpm, that's only for that one spot. in other words, the difference between 112 and 110 bpm is different than the difference between 175 and 173 bpm.

it's not, it's a linear change. I was doing the math... a 1 beat per minute change in tempo = .016 seconds no matter what the original bpm was. The only time 1 bpm doesn't create a change of .016 seconds is when you're dealing with half time.

yeah you right.

I think we're both right. A change of 1 BPM will always equal .016 seconds of change, but for a track at 90 BPM that's 1/90th of a relative change and a track at 140 it's a 1/140th change. Theoretically, a 1bpm change at lower tempo should be easier to detect than at high tempo.

Dustwyrm wrote:I agree Claude, I figured the poster was asking about the common listener and how they would perceive such a difference. To the producer's ear vs. the average listener. I don't think there is a difference. Example:

oh my god lmao

Another important thing to consider is how staccato your percussive elements are. ex: If your hi hats are closed, little staccato-ey clicks(808 closed hats) and they aren't very tight it will probably stick out, whereas if you have some open hi hats(preferably multisamples or a long loop) that sustain for a while, you'll be able to get away with more tempo ambiguity.
oh- maybe a better example: Compare a really focused, snappy-tuned snare drum with a loose, slow buzzing snare. Consider a drum roll. The guy with the loose snare could be playing slower but because his sound has less definition and blurs together, it might sound faster. (especially if he's playing buzz strokes)
Look up a video of Buddy Rich doing a drum solo and some death metal drummer with all the drums triggered. Buddy Rich could get away with more tempo ambiguity because of how his drums sounded.

Coki is smart to put a lot of his tunes at 143, they have more of a heavy Hip-Hop swing that way. You really notice the difference when you slow Molten down to 140.

i feel 140 has a certain rigidity. 135 and 145 feel less structured and loose to me for some reason