a discussion of crippled Q-LINK behavior in OS 2XL

Jandpoint wrote:froze my mpc2500se with osxl ver.1.29

You made sure to press 'erase' when booting for the first time because that happened to me one night when I was flitting between different OSes and forgot to initialize the OS with erase... but once I held down erase and booted it's never, ever happened again; and it'd never happened previously either.

I was under the impression that OS2 included too many features (Q-links, etc) that you required compared to OS2XL anyway Jandpoint.

Anywayz... digression..

just bumping this to ask - what happened to the screen where you can draw or edit q-link automation? didn't have an mpc for a few months, now I can't find it in os2xl or os2. I thought it was really easy to get to that from the grid edit.

on the plus side, at least paying for os2xl only also registers os2...

Skillet wrote:just bumping this to ask - what happened to the screen where you can draw or edit q-link automation? didn't have an mpc for a few months, now I can't find it in os2xl or os2. I thought it was really easy to get to that from the grid edit.

wow, old thread! i was pretty harsh on JJ there.
i've learned to live with the qlink limitations. there are some ways around the issue.

JJ removed the q-real edit screen in os2xl. the CC edit screen is still there, tho. you have to change your track type to MIDI first, then goto the GRID EDIT screen, hold down the SHIFT key and press the F1 button (control). move your cursor up to the top to change the types of data you can edit.

in os 2, to get to the q-real edit screen, you do the same as above, only make sure your track type is DRUM.
http://www7a.biglobe.ne.jp/~mpc1000/os2/grid_d2e.htm

Sweet, I was just blanking on that. Now I'll have to decide if I like having more q-link stuff or an arpeggiator better...

Sooty_G wrote:

Nym wrote:cc, cc, cc, vst vst vst!

or even better than vst is an external synth that also processes sound, and i already have a very powerful one. i definitely use the CC abilities in the MPC. but i don't use the SLIDERS for that, per se. i have a keyboard midi controller dedicated to tweaking the synth live.

but what i want (& had in OS 2) is direct control over the samples in the MPC. no vst is gonna help you modulate the sample start & end times, chop, etc... in the MPC. combine that with the filters and the way you have the sample looped... and you have some very powerful and unique ways of twisting samples right in the box. much more powerful and unique than just adding a second filter. with all the sound twisting available in OS 2 i didn't miss that second filter at all.

WTF man you are bit of a whinger, arnt ya? 2 passes with both sliders can be done without overdubbing previous pass. FTRM issue there i think.
If you have a synth then use it to get the realtime control of filter resonance of samples playing on MPC. I do this all the time And with Q slider doing something else, at same time - So you dont need DAW or laptop, just good old MIDI CC74.
So stop complaining and instead, work out a way to solve problem. Though the answer is in my post for you. I see really simple work rounds to your problem that takes a far less effort than all the posts you have to write lol

Yeah, the lack of development of the Q-link is kinda glaring and surprising in the JJ OS.

I feel like at the very least the 2 q links should work like 2 sliders on a synth or something where you can control both parameters in real time and at the same time. Ideally I would love to set q link to one thing (say tune) record it, then set the same Q-link to something else (filter Fc.) and record that, and just layer on the automation.

I think that is a limit with the way Akai set up the Q links so you can't layer those parameter changes from the sliders, but there must be a way around that.

Since you can assign the Q Links to midi CC#s and the MPC responds to midi CC#s, there must be a way to internally use midi CC's instead of the Q link channels to layer automation. I wonder if you set a track to midi but not set a midi out, if it will transmit the CCs to the selected program on the track?

Someone that's tight with JJ pitch this too him will ya? Layering automation in real time with the sliders is a GREAT thing, and being able to do that for more than 2 parameters would make the sampler a lot more usefull and let us stay in the box a lot more.

Sooty_G wrote:bad news from JJ:

"Since it was with obstacles in order to add a new function, the specification of Q-LINK was changed.
Therefore, specification cannot be returned."

so that's that.
i'm giving serious thought about going back to OS 2 now.

i don't like the fact that JJ is not a musician, yet making decisions about how my musical instrument operates. we have to face the reality that JJ does not make money by supporting and bug-fixing code - he makes it by introducing novelty: new features that you have to pay for to get.

this wouldn't be a problem except he is dealing with a closed box: the MPC has very little room for codespace and no way to upgrade the hardware. so as he keeps adding features to insure his income stream, he has to keep taking away other things. as a programmer and not a musician (and also motivated by his need to keep his cashflow going), his decisions are a little suspect.

it's when he takes away CORE features of the MPC ( Q-LINK recording, Q-REAL edit, and MIXER AUTOMATION for gods sakes! ) in order to bring in some new features that have more limited appeal that we run into problems in my opinion.

i don't remember anyone asking for CHORD or ARPEGIATOR mode, EQH & EQL, the little envelope graphs in GPE, sequence rearranging, etc. these are all features that i'm happy to use, but when they come at the expense of some more basic things then forget it.

i'm tired of the constant feature swap, the worrying about what feature will be killed next, the constant loss of compatibility with old projects... you get used to a way of working and then have to re-adjust everything when JJ pulls something out. if that's what he's going to do then he needs to make the OS MODULAR! have a list of available features, you pick the ones that are important to you, and then you get the OS made. or maybe have 3 different versions of the current OS available (with the current features) that we can choose from. maybe people would buy more than one version and JJ would even end up making more money that way.

i'm willing to bet any one of us uses the MPC to make music FAR more than JJ does ( if at all ). the artists should be the ones steering the development of the tool. but right now it's JJ's way or the highway. OS 2XL came out of nowhere and it was take it or leave it. in my opinion he's giving bells and whistles while taking away solid fundamentals.

Hey Sooty - Ive been with u on this since the birth of OS2XL.

My only method of dealing with this is to go between the os for different types of behaviour, i remember complaing to JJ way back re: sliders on XL, as JJ said that he cant go back to the better slider setup.

so i'm always swapping OS2 for OS2XL, its bad, but JJ left us no alternative..... and U R totally right about the lack of musical insight into some of JJ's decisions where additions and omissions to the OS are concerned - i mean additions like arpeggiator, bar looper (whatev's thafuk its called - its crap), and in such a traditionally 'sonically stiff' workstation theyre useless to me, the use sliders in OS2 enabled ideas lightyears ahead of the curve.

...............

started new thread for my questions. thanks.

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=146628

arebee wrote:Hey Sooty - Ive been with u on this since the birth of OS2XL.

My only method of dealing with this is to go between the os for different types of behaviour, i remember complaing to JJ way back re: sliders on XL, as JJ said that he cant go back to the better slider setup.

so i'm always swapping OS2 for OS2XL, its bad, but JJ left us no alternative..... and U R totally right about the lack of musical insight into some of JJ's decisions where additions and omissions to the OS are concerned - i mean additions like arpeggiator, bar looper (whatev's thafuk its called - its crap), and in such a traditionally 'sonically stiff' workstation theyre useless to me, the use sliders in OS2 enabled ideas lightyears ahead of the curve.

watup bee!

i think it's funny that someone has dug up & quoted this old rant of mine (2008?!! has os2xl really been out that long? damn.) both in this thread and the other one, as since i wrote that i've made peace with os2xl & the qlink situation.

while it's true you can't layer 2 simultaneous streams of qlink data like in os2, you can get 2 qlink passes recorded by using a 'stuttering' movement of the faders. for example: when qlink 1 isn't moving, no automation data is being recorded so those 'holes' in between the qlink 1 movements are available to be filled with qlink2 data. you can get some interesting and unpredictable results with the automation playback jumping between qlink1 & qlink2. you can also do things like crank your tempo all the way up or down, record your qlink passes like that, and then go back to regular tempo for playback to get an interesting 'granular' effect to the qlink data changes.

it also helps to use other gear in tandem with the mpc and not put all the burden on one box. i've built a pretty advanced sequencer in a nord g2 for my mpc. i can send a different sequence to each of the 16 pads, control the sequence density, mutes, randomize the patterns, plus control the global tempo, swing, and number of bars from 1 to 128 - all on the fly and controlled from my iPad.

but in the past month i have to say that i have discovered the app Reaktor and am completely blown away by it. i actually have had my mpc packed away for a couple weeks and have been giving some serious thought to selling it!

never thought i would go back to a laptop-based setup but the capabilities of Reaktor are just insane and have inspired me everytime i sit down with it. can't believe i slept on it for so long.