[bpaluzzi]

I can't agree with that. 3+3+3+2+2 means that the first four notes are all evenly spaced. Tap the accent with your hand. The fourth note is delayed. The pattern is actually 3+3+4+2+2. 7/8.

And the tempo is definitely faster than 194 - it's closer to 212. Are you sure your brother listened to the right track?

[bpaluzzi]

Actually, had another listen (and put it into a DAW). We're both wrong (but I'm more wrong). It's closer to 3+3+3.1+2+2.

The groupings of 2 are delayed, but not by a full 16th note. So it's neither straight 7/8 nor straight 13/16, but a bit in between. Definitely much closer to the 13/16 others are saying, but with enough of a hesitation that a 16th note grid doesn't actually line up. 13.1/16?

Times between notes:

1st accent to 2nd accent: 0.470 seconds

2nd accent to 3rd accent: 0.470 seconds

3rd accent to 4th accent: 0.500 seconds

4th accent to 5th accent: 0.313 seconds

5th accent to 6th accent: 0.306 seconds

[coldtea]

Well, it listened to this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpwWYOE3Y9o&feature=kp

Are we talking about another?

[bpaluzzi]

That is the piece, but the part being discussed doesn't start until 2:23.

[coldtea]

He says:

He checked again. If we're being pedantic, 13/8 at 194.086 bpm is more accurate once you line up the more percussive elements in the middle of the track with a downbeat in the sequencer properly.

The actual tempo was probably 194 bpm, and the slight deviation has something to do with equipment or the transfer (tape speed, midi timing, whatever). Also consider the unquantised playing, slower attack times in some sounds, his gear etc. I wouldn't be surprised if a contemporary classical composer thought "You know what, no one's done a 13.1/16 piece - I bet it would be amazing. Such inspiration. Much genius", but I don't think that applies here. No reason to complicate things.

He made an mp3 with a ride cymbal doing the opening pattern throughout the track; 13/8 no tempo alterations, at 194.086 bpm, and it's pretty much spot on.