Think of upgrading from the MPC 3000 to 5000. Any Answers??

Have you actually tried chopping large amount of samples on the 5000?

nope, but the logic is this (i've written this before, apologies to those who find this repetitive)

1. chop a sample into 64 slices
2. realize that you want to pitch the entire sample's chops down 4 semitones
3. go through EVERY pad on EVERY pad bank and drop the tune 4 semitones.
4. (assuming each slice is even) say you want to apply identical ADSR settings on each pad.
5. go through EVERY pad on EVERY pad bank and apply your single ADSR setting.

try it or not, i see that this is a serious workflow problem. having come from the exact same process on the 1000/2500 pre-jj os, i've had first hand experience of this type of limitation. it's a crushing, time consuming process. it makes a simple change such as changing a single parameter across your whole program an outright nightmare, hence the oregon trail reference.

and i'm DEFINITELY not one to think that everything should be done like lightning
i straight up laugh in the face of people who claim to make a beat in 5 minutes.
but extremely repetitive, time consuming procedures like those i mentioned above MUST be streamlined in order to stay competitive with contemporary platforms.

this is not so much a problem for someone who is working mostly with drum oneshots and sequencing external midi for instrumentation, more for people who sample from records or other medium and slice/sequence in the mpc.

Nym wrote:nope, but the logic is this (i've written this before, apologies to those who find this repetitive)

1. chop a sample into 64 slices
2. realize that you want to pitch the entire sample's chops down 4 semitones
3. go through EVERY pad on EVERY pad bank and drop the tune 4 semitones.
4. (assuming each slice is even) say you want to apply identical ADSR settings on each pad.
5. go through EVERY pad on EVERY pad bank and apply your single ADSR setting.

try it or not, i see that this is a serious workflow problem. having come from the exact same process on the 1000/2500 pre-jj os, i've had first hand experience of this type of limitation. it's a crushing, time consuming process. it makes a simple change such as changing a single parameter across your whole program an outright nightmare, hence the oregon trail reference.

I agree with you 100%. I tried this last night and simply gave up.

Suggestion: I think I really easy way to implement this is to use the SHIFT button. If you hold down SHIFT and change an ADSR setting, it will change the settings for ALL PADS in a single program. This is along the same lines as the PAD SENSITIVITY mode. Holding down SHIFT will change all the pads settings at once.

Askia Shaheed wrote:

Nym wrote:nope, but the logic is this (i've written this before, apologies to those who find this repetitive)

1. chop a sample into 64 slices
2. realize that you want to pitch the entire sample's chops down 4 semitones
3. go through EVERY pad on EVERY pad bank and drop the tune 4 semitones.
4. (assuming each slice is even) say you want to apply identical ADSR settings on each pad.
5. go through EVERY pad on EVERY pad bank and apply your single ADSR setting.

try it or not, i see that this is a serious workflow problem. having come from the exact same process on the 1000/2500 pre-jj os, i've had first hand experience of this type of limitation. it's a crushing, time consuming process. it makes a simple change such as changing a single parameter across your whole program an outright nightmare, hence the oregon trail reference.

I agree with you 100%. I tried this last night and simply gave up.

Suggestion: I think I really easy way to implement this is to use the SHIFT button. If you hold down SHIFT and change an ADSR setting, it will change the settings for ALL PADS in a single program. This is along the same lines as the PAD SENSITIVITY mode. Holding down SHIFT will change all the pads settings at once.

This is all program mode stuff. Not chopping. You can simply navigate the the thing you want to change in program mode (i.e. Tune) and adjust it, hit next pad, adjust it, hit next pad, etc. Every time you hit a new pad, you will remain on the same field on the next pad. doing this I can detune all 64 pads in 25 seconds! Instantaneous gratifaction? No, but it not as huge of a time constraint as is perceived.

hell in a matter of 2 min. , I could have all sorts of stuff changed on all sorts of pads.

MUSIII wrote:

Askia Shaheed wrote:

Nym wrote:nope, but the logic is this (i've written this before, apologies to those who find this repetitive)

1. chop a sample into 64 slices
2. realize that you want to pitch the entire sample's chops down 4 semitones
3. go through EVERY pad on EVERY pad bank and drop the tune 4 semitones.
4. (assuming each slice is even) say you want to apply identical ADSR settings on each pad.
5. go through EVERY pad on EVERY pad bank and apply your single ADSR setting.

try it or not, i see that this is a serious workflow problem. having come from the exact same process on the 1000/2500 pre-jj os, i've had first hand experience of this type of limitation. it's a crushing, time consuming process. it makes a simple change such as changing a single parameter across your whole program an outright nightmare, hence the oregon trail reference.

I agree with you 100%. I tried this last night and simply gave up.

Suggestion: I think I really easy way to implement this is to use the SHIFT button. If you hold down SHIFT and change an ADSR setting, it will change the settings for ALL PADS in a single program. This is along the same lines as the PAD SENSITIVITY mode. Holding down SHIFT will change all the pads settings at once.

This is all program mode stuff. Not chopping. You can simply navigate the the thing you want to change in program mode (i.e. Tune) and adjust it, hit next pad, adjust it, hit next pad, etc. Every time you hit a new pad, you will remain on the same field on the next pad. doing this I can detune all 64 pads in 25 seconds! Instantaneous gratifaction? No, but it not as huge of a time constraint as is perceived.

hell in a matter of 2 min. , I could have all sorts of stuff changed on all sorts of pads.

Yes. That is what we are forced to do with the Akai OS. However, JJ OS has added a global program edit, where doing what you described above takes a fraction of a second....doing a little math...the JJ method is perhaps 50x faster...

^ what he said (posted at the same time, so this may be redundant:)

it is program mode stuff, but it's directly connected to chopping.

you're right, 2 minutes 1 time isn't that big a deal.
however, it really is that huge of a time constraint when you're talking about the many, many edits that many do in programs. plus, 2 minutes compared to 5 seconds on multiple occasions starts to add up.

particularly with ADSR: how many times do you get it dead right on the first try?
it's an informed trial and error process - nudging it into the right space, continuously tweaking until it sounds just right.

another point: there are 20+ (probably more in the 5000) parameters per pad. for bulk changes, there is no getting around it - this is tedious, repetitive work - truly wasted effort.

here's a comparison: you know in Mac and Windows how you can select/change multiple objects in multiple software by hitting a modifier key (control, apple key) or by clicking and dragging? imagine if that wasn't an option in your DAW of choice, or on the desktop, or in your internet browser, or...etcetcetc. an even better use is any soft sampler - every single soft sampler i've encountered allows you to ctrl A all samples and bulk assign them. my most famiilar example: NNXT in Reason. what would that sampler be if you had to select each individual sample (sometimes 20+ samples are used in these multisample sxts)

the issue isn't "can you do it," it's "is it accomplished using the 'path of least resistance."

i'm not about to ask you to compete in some sort of silly "pgm race" and i also am aware that most mpcs don't have ANY global parameter editing function - but i do ask you to realize the incredible benefit/handiness of such a function.

in my opinion, leaving it out in a flagship model in 2008 is a REAL short sight for even beginner-intermediate users, let alone anyone who uses the mpc more rigorously. you've heard of "voter fatigue?" where a voter, filling out a ballot, gets halfway down the list of people to vote for for the various positions in X election and eventually gives up?

it's a similar case when you must spend so long tweaking individual parameters to fit the same numbers. it's discouraging! a user might not "stop halfway" but instead he may just steer clear of such parameters altogether, dissuaded by all the extra work involved.

often, large sample-chopped programs don't all need the exact same settings. ESPECIALLY with adsr. we will never leave behind the need to treat each pad as its own entity -- but to get them all in the ballpark and then nudge accordingly: THAT'S a time saver.

not to mention that it puts way less strain on your hardware, saving your data wheel/cursor buttons LOADS of mileage.

Nym wrote:^ what he said (posted at the same time, so this may be redundant:)

it is program mode stuff, but it's directly connected to chopping.

you're right, 2 minutes 1 time isn't that big a deal.
however, it really is that huge of a time constraint when you're talking about the many, many edits that many do in programs. plus, 2 minutes compared to 5 seconds on multiple occasions starts to add up.

particularly with ADSR: how many times do you get it dead right on the first try?
it's an informed trial and error process - nudging it into the right space, continuously tweaking until it sounds just right.

another point: there are 20+ (probably more in the 5000) parameters per pad. for bulk changes, there is no getting around it - this is tedious, repetitive work - truly wasted effort.

here's a comparison: you know in Mac and Windows how you can select/change multiple objects in multiple software by hitting a modifier key (control, apple key) or by clicking and dragging? imagine if that wasn't an option in your DAW of choice, or on the desktop, or in your internet browser, or...etcetcetc. an even better use is any soft sampler - every single soft sampler i've encountered allows you to ctrl A all samples and bulk assign them. my most famiilar example: NNXT in Reason. what would that sampler be if you had to select each individual sample (sometimes 20+ samples are used in these multisample sxts)

the issue isn't "can you do it," it's "is it accomplished using the 'path of least resistance."

i'm not about to ask you to compete in some sort of silly "pgm race" and i also am aware that most mpcs don't have ANY global parameter editing function - but i do ask you to realize the incredible benefit/handiness of such a function.

in my opinion, leaving it out in a flagship model in 2008 is a REAL short sight for even beginner-intermediate users, let alone anyone who uses the mpc more rigorously. you've heard of "voter fatigue?" where a voter, filling out a ballot, gets halfway down the list of people to vote for for the various positions in X election and eventually gives up?

it's a similar case when you must spend so long tweaking individual parameters to fit the same numbers. it's discouraging! a user might not "stop halfway" but instead he may just steer clear of such parameters altogether, dissuaded by all the extra work involved.

often, large sample-chopped programs don't all need the exact same settings. ESPECIALLY with adsr. we will never leave behind the need to treat each pad as its own entity -- but to get them all in the ballpark and then nudge accordingly: THAT'S a time saver.

not to mention that it puts way less strain on your hardware, saving your data wheel/cursor buttons LOADS of mileage.

Well, hell. It's hard to argue with that! You make good points.

I have made some pretty complex music in my time, but at no point have I ever wanted or needed to chop a sample into 64 parts. It's a pain though if you use that function often.

64 is actually not that many slices, depending on how busy the sample is. 32+ especially is no rare thing, especially today when the benefit of slicing samples note per note is greater than ever. look at rex files: you rarely see rex files where single slices consist of multiple hits. no, with rexes, each slice is its own note -- its own pluck, its own drum hit, etc etc while chopping, i've often found the 64 slice limit (and the 64 pad limit, for that matter) to be just that - a limit. as the software allows it, mpcs are becoming less so "chunk sequencers" and more so surgical oneshot sequencers.

BUT, but. all this is besides the point - even if a user slices a sample into only 16 pieces (hardly rare), individual pad parameter changes is still a waste of time that could be taken care of far more rapidly/sensibly with global parameter edits.

I think I will stick to actual REX file editing just for ease of use!

I'm pretty new to this board mainly because I didn't know it was here, plus I wanted to find out more about the 5K as it ticks a lot of boxes for me. What is quite apparent is that MPC's are great pieces of hardware that are let down badly by their OS. Even the JJ OS has a 16 page bug report topic on here which surprised me a bit as everyone raves about it.

My 2Kxl has crashed hundreds of times during its working life, sometimes even corrupting a whole 250meg zip disc in the process, yet I am still salivating at the prospect of a suped up MPC. Pretty strange uh??

kind of strange. in all good (or bad) humor it reminds me of a situation of domestic violence - the abused justifies the actions of the abuser

first "yes, i fell down the stairs."
second, "oh, i must have deserved it..."

the difference in the bug report page in the jjos forum is that it's a community driven bug hunt...bugs are solved as they are found and as new features are implemented. that being said, the bug list in the jjos forum is more like a bug graveyard--or a "Silent Spring" if you're familiar with the DDT pesticide story. that's one of the reasons people are happy by comparison.

but this is all very off topic regarding the actual discussion so i'm gonna shut up

I have the MPC 3000 Roger Linn Black ltd edition and thought i'd try upgrading to the MPC 5000. My approach was i bought the 5000 last Friday and got it today. My plan is to use it for a while and then write my experiences.

Well today i cracked the wrapper and propped the 5000 on the table to get started in my first experiences.

First off... everyone on the 5k forum here seems to point out how cheaply made the unit is. Well i want to clear up some of these misconceptions - and as a MPC 3000 owner (arguably the heaviest, most durable MPC ever made) I think i know the difference between built to last and cheap

Build Quality - MPC 5000 - I'd give it a 7 out of 10 stars. the entire face plate is metal despite some people saying its plastic. The side rails and front rails are made of what feels like heavy plastic - meaning its thick and formed well. But it is a little bit more hollow sounding when you knock on it versus knocking on the face plate. What i had to get used to right away as a 3000 owner is the cheap push buttons. All the push buttons are made of light hollow plastic versus the MPC 3000 which are made of more solid plastic. Also the Data Dial is very cheap feeling compared to the 3000. The data dial is also hollow plastic reminds me of the plastic body on a kids model kar kit. The dial itself feels light and airy and makes a light clickit sound when dialed as if the gearing mechanism underneath is all plastic (which means it will wear out or break eventually). The clicks on the data dial represent postive stops which is a good thing to have for setting data parameters. The rotary knobs feel solid and smooth and i've fairly impressed with these. The LCD is large and much more functional than the 3000 screen obviously. The LCD pivots nearly to a 90degree upgright angle which is a plus over the previous 60 degree angle of the mpc 3000. One thing about the LCD that has me wondering is the screen itself. When setting the contrast knob 12 o'clock (notch straight up) the screen is actually all blue and unreadable??? If i turn it to the left it gets more blue and even gets more darker blue. I have to turn the knotch all the way to the 2 oclock position to read the text. And when i do that it appears like theres screen burn on the lower right hand corner of the LCD. I'm thinking either i have recieved a defect screen unit maybe or Akai blew the LCD engineering. Seems when you turn the contrast knob either way the contrast slowly fades in from left and fades out from right.... never really hitting a point where the contrast is actually balanced evenly across the screen. Back the external build. With all the problems people have had with the MPC pop-out power button, I'm not sure why Akai stayed with that design. My 3000 actually has a power toggle switch which has proven to be a far more reliable design for power switches (used on every Computer CPU power supply for decades). Also the pop-in pwr supply buttons are far easier to accidentally pop-out and turn off the unit losing all your work.

I will continue to provide more reviews on Operating System, Workflow, Sound Quality and Sequencer functionality/performance. On the latter topic, i have made a few quick beats using the on-board sounds from loopmasters. And without having yet mastered the 5000 sequencer, I am of the opinion at this time that the sequencer feels a little loose and less forgiving of off played notes. In fact, i started a simple drum rhythm with simple hits and i had to replay it several times just to get it in the pocket - where on the MPC 3000 it perfects your unperfections on the 1st pass. So maybe theres a setting i'm not using yet... so far 3000 gets +1 on sequencer performance. I have to log off now, but i'll be back with more reviews. This review is only after i've had the MPC 5000 for 4hrs today.

MastaMhyne wrote:...On the latter topic, i have made a few quick beats using the on-board sounds from loopmasters. And without having yet mastered the 5000 sequencer, I am of the opinion at this time that the sequencer feels a little loose and less forgiving of off played notes. In fact, i started a simple drum rhythm with simple hits and i had to replay it several times just to get it in the pocket - where on the MPC 3000 it perfects your unperfections on the 1st pass. So maybe theres a setting i'm not using yet... so far 3000 gets +1 on sequencer performance. I have to log off now, but i'll be back with more reviews. This review is only after i've had the MPC 5000 for 4hrs today.

I believe it's your quantize (Time Code) settings. The MPC 5000 has a more advanced sequencer than the MPC 3000. Once you understand how it works, you will be fine. I've also come from an MPC 3000 background and later switched to the 2500. The MPC 5000 is very similar to the 2500...including the build.

MastaMhyne wrote:I have the MPC 3000 Roger Linn Black ltd edition and thought i'd try upgrading to the MPC 5000. My approach was i bought the 5000 last Friday and got it today. My plan is to use it for a while and then write my experiences.

Well today i cracked the wrapper and propped the 5000 on the table to get started in my first experiences.

First off... everyone on the 5k forum here seems to point out how cheaply made the unit is. Well i want to clear up some of these misconceptions - and as a MPC 3000 owner (arguably the heaviest, most durable MPC ever made) I think i know the difference between built to last and cheap

Build Quality - MPC 5000 - I'd give it a 7 out of 10 stars. the entire face plate is metal despite some people saying its plastic. The side rails and front rails are made of what feels like heavy plastic - meaning its thick and formed well. But it is a little bit more hollow sounding when you knock on it versus knocking on the face plate. What i had to get used to right away as a 3000 owner is the cheap push buttons. All the push buttons are made of light hollow plastic versus the MPC 3000 which are made of more solid plastic. Also the Data Dial is very cheap feeling compared to the 3000. The data dial is also hollow plastic reminds me of the plastic body on a kids model kar kit. The dial itself feels light and airy and makes a light clickit sound when dialed as if the gearing mechanism underneath is all plastic (which means it will wear out or break eventually). The clicks on the data dial represent postive stops which is a good thing to have for setting data parameters. The rotary knobs feel solid and smooth and i've fairly impressed with these. The LCD is large and much more functional than the 3000 screen obviously. The LCD pivots nearly to a 90degree upgright angle which is a plus over the previous 60 degree angle of the mpc 3000. One thing about the LCD that has me wondering is the screen itself. When setting the contrast knob 12 o'clock (notch straight up) the screen is actually all blue and unreadable??? If i turn it to the left it gets more blue and even gets more darker blue. I have to turn the knotch all the way to the 2 oclock position to read the text. And when i do that it appears like theres screen burn on the lower right hand corner of the LCD. I'm thinking either i have recieved a defect screen unit maybe or Akai blew the LCD engineering. Seems when you turn the contrast knob either way the contrast slowly fades in from left and fades out from right.... never really hitting a point where the contrast is actually balanced evenly across the screen. Back the external build. With all the problems people have had with the MPC pop-out power button, I'm not sure why Akai stayed with that design. My 3000 actually has a power toggle switch which has proven to be a far more reliable design for power switches (used on every Computer CPU power supply for decades). Also the pop-in pwr supply buttons are far easier to accidentally pop-out and turn off the unit losing all your work.

I will continue to provide more reviews on Operating System, Workflow, Sound Quality and Sequencer functionality/performance. On the latter topic, i have made a few quick beats using the on-board sounds from loopmasters. And without having yet mastered the 5000 sequencer, I am of the opinion at this time that the sequencer feels a little loose and less forgiving of off played notes. In fact, i started a simple drum rhythm with simple hits and i had to replay it several times just to get it in the pocket - where on the MPC 3000 it perfects your unperfections on the 1st pass. So maybe theres a setting i'm not using yet... so far 3000 gets +1 on sequencer performance. I have to log off now, but i'll be back with more reviews. This review is only after i've had the MPC 5000 for 4hrs today.

.


This is kinda off the subject, but, where did you order your MPC 5000 from on Friday to have it today.... i ordered mine 2 months ago, and from an online company and havent seen nonthing yet(might have to holla at your peeps if they can get some more). I know companies get them at different times, but im tryna be with the first group to make a "classic hit" on one

mine will be here today VIA UPS...
one of my preorders were thru AMS... and they are the ones who
shipped it....
PS.. I picked up my 5 year old son that XR20, and he loves it!