Should a Device synced via MIDI Clock even bother reporting BPM?

I've covered the aspect of following MIDI Clock and displaying BPM in another blog posts:

This isn't about repeating what I've said in the blog post above, it's more of a question.

Given that it is normal for devices to come up with different reported BPM values when following an external clock (and putting aside legit sync issues like excessive jitter), what benefit is there in even trying to report the BPM value beyond the Master Clock device?

Unless someone is clued into the ordinary reasons that account for the reported differences, all it does is make people feel there is something wrong with sync when they see one value that is slightly off from the next.  Wouldn't displaying "SYNC" or something like that in place of the calculated BPM on the following device be better?

Our own product line is a good case study.  To date, we've made 2 products that can follow an external clock.

The first one calculates and reports the BPM of the external clock, which of course can appear to be slightly different than the value set by the Master Clock device even though tight sync between them is in effect.  This has lead to a few false bug reports, which is one of the main reasons I wrote the blog post referenced above.  To have any impression that there is an error in BPM though brings negative attention when it is not warranted.

The second device we produce makes no effort to show the calculated BPM when it's following an external clock, and as a consequence not a single support inquiry has come in doubting it's ability to sync to another clock.  This is how I think it should always be.

From now on, unless there is a very specific use case, I'm inclined to be content with devices that only indicate when they are following an external clock without trying to display the BPM.

Back to blog

Leave a comment

Please note, comments need to be approved before they are published.