*WE* need to do something about this bunk......

The CPU of the MPC1000:
http://www.renesas.com/fmwk.jsp?cnt=sh7 ... 727_group/
http://resource.renesas.com/lib/eng/e_l ... index.html [Need to use Internet Explorer for this link.]

(following images courtesy of "Stereoroid")
http://picasaweb.google.com/stereoroid/ ... kaiMPC1000

~200MHz?? For $900, you think they'd pump out at least 500 MHz. LEAST. I understand it must cost extra to supplant a dedicated DSP. But still. And 24-bit/192kHz sampling! My M-Audio "192 Audiophile" PCI card is right at $180. And that's for the WHOLE ENTIRE SHAZAM. (And that's $20 below M-Audio's MSRP.) How much could it be for just a chipset to sample at 24-bit/192 kHz?

</end_rant>

Sh!t a Xbox runs a 700mhz processor....

mpc1k is very fast tho...

What do you propose that we do about it?

The 1K suits my purposes fine, and I was prepared to pay the price that I did. The fact that it's built around a DSP with a low external clock speed really doesn't bug me that much.

I dread to think how mad you'd be if you bought a 2500, which is built around the same DSP as the 1000.

i know nothing about this.

what'd happen if we bought a better processor and put it into the 1000?

I'm content with the overall machine. What it does. How it works.

But just from a consumer's point-of-view. For what we actually pay. *We* should get something better.

I was thinking we could all e-mail [email protected]. Bombard them with e-mails for two weeks. It might not do any thing. But it would only take like 30 seconds to do so. And "What If" something positive does come out of it? There's nothing to lose.

To reply to the guy that asked what an improved CPU/DSP would benefit: Processing would be faster. Sounds(samples) would improve. Ideally, there would be more warmth in sounds. Less flatness. Hence the 16-bit vs. 24-bit AND 44.1kHz vs. 192kHz argument.

Bits: What stores the sample.
Sampling frequency: At what frequency (bandwidth) the sample records/plays back at.

True. Most users won't be able to tell the difference. There are many variables that apply to this. Lack of ear training. Or just plain old don't have the ear for it. And what you listen with. A pair of M-Audio powered speakers and a Mackie HR824 sounds COMPLETELY different. So do a pair of Sony MDR-V700DJ's and a high-quality audiophile's Sennheiser headphone (w/ dedicated preamp). And then there's room acoustics. I won't even get into that one.

You know how if you run too many sequences/songs with so many lengthy samples. Add effects/filters... sh*t gets all fukt up? Stuff like that wouldn't happen.

There would less bugs.

But the jist of this whole rant is that........... as consumers, we're getting the raw end of the deal here. (This doesn't mean I *hate/dislike* the MPC1000.)

You guys are kinda comparing apples and oranges... remember that you cannot compare a 200 mhz processor that runs an mpc to any processor in a PC or Mac... the processors in the computer have a lot more to do than the processor in the mpc, so you cannot compare them like that. The processor in the MPC may do way fewer calculations per second, but the mpc also requires way fewer. So don't think that the 200mHz processor in the MPC is performing anything like a 200mHz processor in your computer would. It's completely different.

asan wrote:To reply to the guy that asked what an improved CPU/DSP would benefit: Processing would be faster. Sounds(samples) would improve. Ideally, there would be more warmth in sounds. Less flatness. Hence the 16-bit vs. 24-bit AND 44.1kHz vs. 192kHz argument.

Bullshit. To change the quality of the sound you´ll need to switch the A/D converters on the inputs. A faster CPU is not making any difference in this case. You´ll need a faster CPU to handle higher resolution audio in a smooth way but it´ll not generate a better sound. It´s like saying a 15 dollar audio interface aimed at gaming will give studio quality results if you hook it up to a really fast computer.

asan wrote:You know how if you run too many sequences/songs with so many lengthy samples. Add effects/filters... sh*t gets all fukt up?

No, has never happened to me.

True that a lot more simultaenous effects could be used, polyphony would expand, the possibility of more filters per sound etc.

asan wrote:There would less bugs.

Never had a bug that I gould trace to a lack of processing power. Unless someone claims that the CPU works on overload while saving or moving notes in Step Edit.

asan wrote:But the jist of this whole rant is that........... as consumers, we're getting the raw end of the deal here. (This doesn't mean I *hate/dislike* the MPC1000.)

Not that it matters in this case as the Akai programmers don´t show that much of dedication and skill to really fine tune their code, BUT:

This processing, gigaHz madness that is sweeping the world these days are kinda crappish. Everone wants, faster, leaner and more effective processors. Just like cars, d*cks, t*ts and houses. Idiots buy 7 seated terrain veichles to drive alone in the inner city, buys a house with a 400 000 dollar kitchen and never cooks in it, enlarge their d*cks just to become impotent.
It´s not the only size of the processor that determines what you can do with it, it´s the intelligence of the one coding the application that most of all decides whether or not you´ll have power under the hod or not. Bad and sloppy code won´t run fast on a fast processor.
If there´s only you in your big f*cking hummer driving around the block all day it´s a bad f*cking investment, four empty seats. If you have a 4 gigaHz Athlon with sloppy software allowing only 1/5 of the processes possible per cycle to be executed it´s a bad f*cking investment.

Real heads did more on the C 64´s back in the days that many average programmers need many times the power they needed to pull off. Why? Cause they knew what they were doing, they knew the hardware, which had dedicated processing power for it´s tasks, just like the MPC 1000.

200 mHz might seem slender, but it´s that macho attitude of bigger, more and faster that is actually the bottleneck in modern electronic development.

Chillllll.

I'm just pointing out that 24-bit/192kHz has been utilized for quite some time now... I don't know exactly how long, but at least a couple of years. Sh*t. And CPU technology... *tilts head / raises eyebrow*

WTF, man.

Sup wit this whole "big d*ck, big t*ts" talk?

I got it, you don't give a rat's a$s. Cool.

If you ask Akai for an MPC that does 24-bit/192kHz, they'll tell you to buy the 4000, I'm pretty sure.

The 1K's architecture is set. Are we going to get a new processor retro-fit for free? I doubt it.

If you want to lobby Akai for anything, lobby them for a new OS that compares to the new third party OS, with even more extras.

company have been recycling old technology for years!! and reselling it like it was some new sh1t for years also!!

if you want to do something about it, dont buy any tech product at all.

cause at the end of the day, u buy a mpc to get a job done.

asan wrote:I'm just pointing out that 24-bit/192kHz has been utilized for quite some time now... I don't know exactly how long, but at least a couple of years. Sh*t. And CPU technology... *tilts head / raises eyebrow*

Yeah, higher resolution audio has been around and is nowadays with better or worst results implemented in much consumer audio hardware. However it could not be implemented into the MPC 1000 by fitting / building it with a faster processor.
And higher resolution audio does not always equal superior quality compared to lower resolution, sure much of more of the original dynamic and freq bandwidth is present in the digitized signal but the D/A conversion can still sound really poor.

asan wrote:Sup wit this whole "big d*ck, big t*ts" talk?

What´s up with the "bigger CPU" hype? All I´m saying is that hell will never be full as long as people stress out to have bigger and more just ´cause they can. It´s what you could implement with the power / resources you´ve got, not the power itself that is interesting.
The more resources we got the less we care to optimize and do the most out of them. And that goes for oil, computers, money, love, d*cks, MPC´s and every other thing that could be linked with comfort or status.

asan wrote:I got it, you don't give a rat's a$s. Cool.

I do, but I my concerns on the empowering of the MPC is more of the JJ / home mod type. What he/they and people here has done, perhaps Nym in particular, is taking the frame of the MPC´s physical resources coupled with the coding possibilities JJ has seen and master and out of user experience worked on making the MPC 1000 a more user driven and flexible unit.
They did the work Akai coders should have done in the first place. And that is where Akai has **** up, not paying attention to users needs, not straightening out bugs and not done what is possible within the processing frame of the MPC 1000.

[quote="ryssen"]However it could not be implemented into the MPC 1000 by fitting / building it with a faster processor.
And higher resolution audio does not always equal superior quality compared to lower resolution, sure much of more of the original dynamic and freq bandwidth is present in the digitized signal but the D/A conversion can still sound really poor.quote]

Yes. I know. I did say. Alternative chipset/DSP, non? And I also said.......... "Ideally, blah blah blah"

IDEALLY, blah blah blah...

</last_post>

Possibly the most irrelevant post in this forums history?