Pad Looping?

naugie wrote:plus what ur telln me is that 3.0 allows u to not unplug usb?

Correct.

Nym, you seem to forget that looping can also be used to sustain a note...
So loping is useful. And badly implemented in the MPC1000. Have you ever made a good sustain loop only to notice that when actually played for a long time it starts clicking, then the click goes away, then back etc?

no actually i'd considered that - i still think it's a better idea to "loop" from within the sequencer even when it comes to sustaining a note. more control over individual velocity, attack, etc. [/quote]

Antonym wrote:
put the first at 1:0:00 and the 2nd at 5:0:00.

He means 1:1:00 and 5:1:00

oh wow thanks

haha i don't even think about it in numbers anymore, it's funny

freezerman wrote:and is a sure sign of 'bad' os design: the sample should set itself to LOOP ON automatically as soon as you start setting the loop points. Why would any one set up a loop point without the intention of looping the sample?

co-zizzle.

Also when saving the option to replace sounds should be on YES by default.

Antonym wrote:this is a question that pops up a lot and it represents a difference in sequenced based loopers and pad based loopers.

if i ever want a sound to repeat itself, i don't program the pad to loop - i just tap it multiple times into the sequence. understand? the "loop" is specified not by how long i hold it down, it's by how many midi notes i insert into my sequence. i find this moer useful because you can control the velocity/filter/etc progression/recession.

we had a guy here a while back frustrated because he was putting entire phrase samples onto a single pad and was angry when they wouldn't loop seemlessly along with his sequence.

how much easier would it have been for him to just set it at the first tick of the sequence and allowed the single hit to loop as the sequence did?

remember - this is the chain of power. You, Sequence, Midi Notes, Pads, Sample. upsetting the order of that leads to Civil War, which almost never sounds good. too many drums, dead confederates, and fifes.

I place my samples in step edit at times and it's flawless.

naugie wrote:looping in the mpc is a bad idea space reasons. ya when i first bought my mpc i used to full around with full phrases on my mpc but then because of space i just took out the boom and bap out of the boom and baps. i wish the trim menu had a copy and paste like a wave editor then agin i wish i didnt have to unplug the usb everytime i use my mpc1000 usb feature.

o/s 3.5 takes care of the USB issue.

Antonym wrote:

Nym, you seem to forget that looping can also be used to sustain a note...
So loping is useful. And badly implemented in the MPC1000. Have you ever made a good sustain loop only to notice that when actually played for a long time it starts clicking, then the click goes away, then back etc?

no actually i'd considered that - i still think it's a better idea to "loop" from within the sequencer even when it comes to sustaining a note. more control over individual velocity, attack, etc.

[/quote]

I can't co-sign that... Loop in sustain, especially when you loop a very small portion of the wave is not practical to implement with the sequencer. Moreover, the sustain is an absolute loop, it cannot change as tempo varies. Thus you can't programme it into the sequencer because you can't be sure that the good sustain loop will necessarily be in time with the BPM you're working with.

yeah - i'm usually never working with something so small i can't program it in the sequencer. i mean if it comes down to it i put it on every single tick if i need to, but that rarely happens to me.

Moreover, the sustain is an absolute loop, it cannot change as tempo varies

that's true, but that's actually something i consider to be good about the seq. looping technique - it keeps the sustain dynamic instead of a literal loop.

but yeah the loop in trim mode in the 1k needs work, i'll DEFINITELY agree with that!