Audio track

JAH wrote:I am entitled to have an opinion on how I would like to see a product developed that I paid for and use daily.

Exactly the same as everyone else here is entitled to express their opinion on how they would like to see this product developed.

But, you choose to actively dismiss and debate everyone else's opinions if you do not agreee with them, as you are doing now.

JAH wrote:Audio tracks with comping, basic editing, etc will suffice initially. Enhancing the features with additional updates such as audio tarcks which syncs to BPM changes is a plus.

For me, very basic sample/audio recording into the sequencer, even without basic editing in the sequencer window, comping, etc., will suffice initially.

Everything else can come later, as far as I am concerned.

If I wanted to have detailed editing and comping, I would just do it in a DAW.

To begin with, I want to be able to record audio into tracks while the sequencer is playing, I don't care if they are dedicated audio tracks, or if it records it as an MPC sample and places a MIDI note in the correct place to trigger it, because really that is functionally doing exactly the same thing.

I should be able to record audio overdubs on top of my beats, on the MPC controller, without using the computer, it should be possible to implement this in the existing sequencer design without too much additional work.

Really, read the part of the manual about recording samples, the example is to record some vocals, but what is the use of that if you can't record along to your beats, it is totally retarded.


This is supposed to be game changing, but I can't record a sample along with my beats, and it can't put that where I recorded it in the sequence, that is very lame.

All it seems they have done is to put some existing MPC features and workflow in the computer, and even a lot of that is incomplete, there doesn't seem to be a great deal of game changing new ways to do things.

And everyone is free to disagree with opinions expressed....just like there are individuals who responded that feel audio tracks are not necessary. Truth be told, there are very few feature requests that I disagree with. You have yet to point one out. You attempted to paint 'your idea' as an example which was basically an idea to make audio track implementation lame. This is the reason I chimed in with a 'hell naw.'

You can use a DAW as much as you like. But with audio tracks, there would be no need for me to go near a DAW..certainly not to click around with a mouse and no intuitive controller at.

Recording audio tracks while the sequencer is playing? Ummm....that is what all DAWs today do whether they cost $80 or $2000.

You may want to read up on what an Audio and MIDI track is as you seem to be confused that they are the same thing when they are not. For instance...if you enter a MIDI note on the first beat of a bar 1 (designed to trigger your audio file) but you start the sequence from bar 2...guess what? You no longer have 'your audio' track. The audio won't be triggered unless you start the sequencer from bar 1. Not to mention if you edit the audio file such as deleting the beginning of the sample....the MIDI sequence will still trigger the sample on the first beat of bar 1. Now 'your audio track' is now out of sync. Real audio tracks don't have such issues. But this is basic stuff. Akai implemented Continuous Sample Tracks in recent MPCs. Certainly not a substitute for audio tracks.

Recording audio overdubs on top of your beats? If you are using an MPC (and pretty much any DAW), your beats are most likely MIDI tracks. You can overdub by adding more MIDI notes to that track. You don't overdub audio over MIDI. You would use an audio track for that task. Akai is not new to adding audio tracks to MPCs. The MPC 5000 has 'real' audio tracks and everything is done from the hardware. Hard disk tracks were implemented in a separate mode that played along side the sequence. Audio tracks for the Ren 'should' be implemented the same way MPC, MIDI, and Plugin Tracks are implemented. You select track 1 and choose 'Audio' as the track type. When recording a Track in the Main Mode, there should see the waveform view instead of the Grid Editor for MPC, MIDI, and Plugin Tracks. In the Track View Mode, it 'should' pretty much look like any other DAW. The Upper View has an overal view of all recorded tracks to include audio tracks. And the lower view should display the respective editor for the currently selected track....Grid Editor or Waveform editor. There is nothing more to it. No complicated process.

Currently in the Ren, you can record/sample along to your beat. Load up your project, enter sample record mode, Start sequencer, Press sample record, and sing/rap into your microphone. Then you assign your vocal sample to a pad and record a note in the sequencer to trigger the sample. This is how MPCs perform...and is no substitue for audio tracks. Basically what you wouldn't mind is the Direct Recording function of recent hardware MPCs which automates this process for you. Boooo.....

It will be up to each individual to decide what is game changing for them. An MPC with virtually unlimited Ram, host plugin instruments/effects, full screen program editing, and the fastest sample editor of any MPC in history is certainly a game changer for me.

JAH wrote:And everyone is free to disagree with opinions expressed....just like there are individuals who responded that feel audio tracks are not necessary. Truth be told, there are very few feature requests that I disagree with. You have yet to point one out.

Yep, cause I have better things to do with my time than trawl through your posts, to prove a point that is already blindingly obvious to everyone else but you.

JAH wrote:You attempted to paint 'your idea' as an example which was basically an idea to make audio track implementation lame. This is the reason I chimed in with a 'hell naw.'

No, it is an idea to get some sort of overdub audio recording function into the MPC Software, without major changes to the way it operates, and without the wait that those major changes will require before they are implemented.

JAH wrote:You can use a DAW as much as you like. But with audio tracks, there would be no need for me to go near a DAW..certainly not to click around with a mouse and no intuitive controller at.

It will be interesting to see how (or if) they implement fine audio region editing in the sequence window, and comping of multiple audio takes, as it is in the Pro Tools Edit Window, on the small MPC controller screen, without resorting to the mouse and keyboard.

JAH wrote:Recording audio tracks while the sequencer is playing? Ummm....that is what all DAWs today do whether they cost $80 or $2000.

What does the Renaissance cost, and does it have this function?

JAH wrote:You may want to read up on what an Audio and MIDI track is as you seem to be confused that they are the same thing when they are not. For instance...if you enter a MIDI note on the first beat of a bar 1 (designed to trigger your audio file) but you start the sequence from bar 2...guess what? You no longer have 'your audio' track. The audio won't be triggered unless you start the sequencer from bar 1. Not to mention if you edit the audio file such as deleting the beginning of the sample....the MIDI sequence will still trigger the sample on the first beat of bar 1. Now 'your audio track' is now out of sync. Real audio tracks don't have such issues. But this is basic stuff. Akai implemented Continuous Sample Tracks in recent MPCs. Certainly not a substitute for audio tracks.

Yep, basic stuff, so where is it?

The issues you mention can be easily programmed around.

JAH wrote:Recording audio overdubs on top of your beats? If you are using an MPC (and pretty much any DAW), your beats are most likely MIDI tracks. You can overdub by adding more MIDI notes to that track. You don't overdub audio over MIDI.

Of course you can overdub audio tracks on top of a MIDI seqeunce, how ridiculous to suggest that you don't or can't.

JAH wrote:You would use an audio track for that task. Akai is not new to adding audio tracks to MPCs. The MPC 5000 has 'real' audio tracks and everything is done from the hardware. Hard disk tracks were implemented in a separate mode that played along side the sequence.

So where is it, if Akai are not new to it, it should already be there?

JAH wrote:Audio tracks for the Ren 'should' be implemented the same way MPC, MIDI, and Plugin Tracks are implemented. You select track 1 and choose 'Audio' as the track type. When recording a Track in the Main Mode, there should see the waveform view instead of the Grid Editor for MPC, MIDI, and Plugin Tracks. In the Track View Mode, it 'should' pretty much look like any other DAW. The Upper View has an overal view of all recorded tracks to include audio tracks. And the lower view should display the respective editor for the currently selected track....Grid Editor or Waveform editor. There is nothing more to it. No complicated process.

Changing the way the software currently operates, to provide a full Multitrack DAW edit window interface, would most certainly be a complicated process.

JAH wrote:Currently in the Ren, you can record/sample along to your beat. Load up your project, enter sample record mode, Start sequencer, Press sample record, and sing/rap into your microphone. Then you assign your vocal sample to a pad and record a note in the sequencer to trigger the sample.

Yep, and how hard would it be for them to implement automatic assigning of that vocal sample to a pad, and placement of a note in the sequencer to trigger the sample in the exact place it was recorded.

Like you said, it is already mostly there, it just needs automatic assignment to a pad and MIDI note in the sequencer.

How hard do you think it would be for them to implement a feature like that, as opposed to rewriting the whole program to provide audio tracks with waveforms in the sequencer window, comping of multiple takes, etc.?

JAH wrote:This is how MPCs perform...and is no substitue for audio tracks. Basically what you wouldn't mind is the Direct Recording function of recent hardware MPCs which automates this process for you. Boooo.....

So where is it, if it is so easy, and is already an accepted part of MPC workflow?

JAH wrote:It will be up to each individual to decide what is game changing for them. An MPC with virtually unlimited Ram, host plugin instruments/effects, full screen program editing, and the fastest sample editor of any MPC in history is certainly a game changer for me.

An half arsed MPC stuck inside the computer, not really game changing for me.

I doubt any programmer wants to half-implement audio tracks as you described and attempt to implement some changes to make it perform similar to audio tracks. That would be silly when they can just add good ol fashioned audio tracks...on their timeline. I doubt anyone here can guess how long it will take them to add audio tracks or your idea. But I can tell you audio tracks makes your idea useless and wasted addition to the code.

Akai could have decided to expand on the MPC 5000 which already has audio tracks. But instead of following that blueprint to the letter, the Ren has plugin instruments and effects which no MPC has. Obviously this was a higher priority than other things.

The Ren already has MIDI region editing in the sequencer window on the computer monitor. Doing so with audio tracks would be the same principle. The editing for MIDI tracks on the computer monitor is completely different then on the Ren's LCD. The same would probably be true for audio tracks. No one in their right mind would want to edited multiple takes of audio on a tiny LCD screen...that can be done with a computer monitor. I am sure there will be some fanatics ranting if every single function is not displayed on the LCD. Editing audio tracks with a mouse is essential. Trying to achieve more beyond what the sample editor can currently due would be asinine IMO. Displaying waveforms on the Ren's LCD is good as it performs like legacy MPCs. It's simply great for marketing (to nerds in internet forums). Functionality-wise, editing on your computer monitor is vastly superior.

On the issue of overdubbing, you may want to re-read your own posts. You are the one talking about overdubbing audio tracks over your beats. We are talking about MPCs and MIDI tracks. You don't record audio overdubs over MIDI tracks. You record audio on dedicated audio tracks in the sequencer in parallel with MIDI and Plugin Instrument tracks.

The MPC 2500, 3000, 4000, and MV-8800 are all sitting to my left and right as I type this with the Ren front and center. Those are among the best (if not the best) sampling drum machines ever created. I co-sign the Ren as the best MPC ever made. Whether that means anything to anyone isn't the point. But that is my assessment. You may want to find another product that you can give a glowing endorsement to instead of debating with me for a product you obviously don't think highly of.

Okay, enough of the Simon-Jah show! - take it to PM guys.

Cheers.

Anyone else got anything useful to add? Otherwise I'll lock this as it seems to be done.

Dont lock the thread. Discussions develop.

labcoats wrote:Dont lock the thread. Discussions develop.

That's what I'm hoping, so if they do develop, I won't lock it.

JAH wrote:

I said what I meant. The MPC Ren is the first MPC with a Track Mixer with Insert FXs. In the past, we used Program Mixers. So no matter which sequence you used the Program in, it will have the same mixer levels and effects. You are confusing this by combining the Track Mixer and the Program Mixer. To see what I am saying...completely ignore the Track Mixer. Route all Pads in Programs to Outputs 1,2. You have now set up the Ren to perform like most hardware MPCs. Add effects in the program as you see fit. Now use this program in multiple sequences. Now when you adjust the effects, volume, pan, etc it is applied to all sequences. Boom..bam!

I acknowledge that some Ren users wants this functionality for Track Mixer. I think this is a good idea as long as it is an option. Because if I am working on 2 sequences and they are unrelated, I don't want the Sequence 1 Track Mixer changing what I am doing on Sequence 2.

People tend to confuse an MPC workflow with a DAW or simply use the MPC one way. An MPC Sequence can be either an entire Song or it can be a building block of a song where you string them together. When using the MPC Sequence as the entire song for linear recording, it performs exactly like a DAW would for MIDI and Plugin tracks. Then having multiple MPC sequences is like have multiple Projects of Pro Tools open. Adjust one Pro Tools Project doesn't impact the others you have open..does it?

For those that want to create multiple short sequences and string them together in Song Mode, then I understand the issue. But it isn't an issue if you use Program Mixer. Or if you do your actually mixing after you convert your Song back into a single Sequence where the mixer levels of Sequence 1 is applied to all other Sequences (typical MPC workflow). But as I pointed out above, it would be a nice feature request if there were a way to link Track Mixer across sequences. But this could be dicey if you don't set up each sequence the same. Because if Seq 1, Track 1 were drums...and Sequence 2, Track 1 were keys...you wouldn't want these two tracks linked.

Im not confusing anything. I dont mind the midi mixer implementation on any hardware MPC because I never mixed anything inside a hardware MPC. The Ren is completely different. No MPC has ever been able to load up VSTs and that changes the game massively. And its that which voids the 20+ year old midi mixer attached to sequences functionality which is exactly what they did with the Ren.

Programme mixer to mix their songs. Thats like mixing your song using your hardware volume control or VST volume controls. Jumping through a million hoops and even then you cant do so many normal things you need to.

People do use more than one sequence to construct their songs. I dont know of a single sequencer, daw, drum machine which restricts the user to one pattern.

Your suggesting
A: The 99 sequences are there for working on multiple multiple songs at the same time: - (nonsense and fantasy). Real producers work on one song and finish it. Their not 4 bar loop guys endlessly plodding around thinking their hot shit. What your saying is only stuff I ever read on forums made up by the very same people who claim they need their laptop at all times coz - u know they need to produce records whilst cruising at 33,000 feet. Its BS - I now because I happen to live in the real world.


B: No one would ever want to record their 'next sequences' movements to create a song arrangement on the fly: But of course producers have been working like that for decades. The MPC is also a performance instrument. Have you ever created an arrangement on the fly as you feel the vibe. Serious magic can happen - honestly!. The MPC allows you to do this but the feature is ruined by the mixers implementation.

But as I pointed out above, it would be a nice feature request if there were a way to link Track Mixer across sequences.

It shouldn't be a a feature. Its should be the default setting. The current implementation should have been the added feature.

MPC-Tutor wrote:

labcoats wrote:Dont lock the thread. Discussions develop.

That's what I'm hoping, so if they do develop, I won't lock it.

It would just be a shame to lock it becasue with audio track implementation comes a lot of Daw related features. I think the thread will be good for possible future discussions. But its your forum of course.

So you want audio tracks exactly the same as a DAW...

JAH wrote:This is pretty simple. Hard disk audio tracks is what is needed. Users want to be able to record multiple takes....and 'comp' these takes. No one is interested in anything less than the capabilities found in nearly every DAW available on the market such as Pro Tools, Logic, Nuendo, Cubase, FL Studio, Reaper, Studio One, Reason, Digital Performer, so on and so on.

...so then it would be a DAW, but then you will not want to go near it because it is a DAW, especially not to click around with a mouse, so that means you will just use the controller to work with the audio tracks, no mouse...

JAH wrote:You can use a DAW as much as you like. But with audio tracks, there would be no need for me to go near a DAW..certainly not to click around with a mouse and no intuitive controller at.

...but then you can't really edit and comp multiple tracks on the controller, so you have to use the mouse and computer screen to work with the audio tracks as you demand them...

JAH wrote:The Ren already has MIDI region editing in the sequencer window on the computer monitor. Doing so with audio tracks would be the same principle. The editing for MIDI tracks on the computer monitor is completely different then on the Ren's LCD. The same would probably be true for audio tracks. No one in their right mind would want to edited multiple takes of audio on a tiny LCD screen...that can be done with a computer monitor. I am sure there will be some fanatics ranting if every single function is not displayed on the LCD. Editing audio tracks with a mouse is essential. Trying to achieve more beyond what the sample editor can currently due would be asinine IMO. Displaying waveforms on the Ren's LCD is good as it performs like legacy MPCs. It's simply great for marketing (to nerds in internet forums). Functionality-wise, editing on your computer monitor is vastly superior.

...you talk so much sh it, do you ever notice that some of what you say contradicts other things that you say?

JAH wrote:On the issue of overdubbing, you may want to re-read your own posts. You are the one talking about overdubbing audio tracks over your beats. We are talking about MPCs and MIDI tracks. You don't record audio overdubs over MIDI tracks. You record audio on dedicated audio tracks in the sequencer in parallel with MIDI and Plugin Instrument tracks.

You have no idea, do you.

The process of recording additional audio over existing tracks is called overdubbing, it makes no difference at all whether those tracks are audio or MIDI.

For example, from Sound On Sound...
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar01/a ... /basic.asp

Preparing For Overdubbing
Though musicians who begin their tracks using a sequencer and MIDI instruments are unlikely to encounter any problems changing these parts and overdubbing individual audio parts over them, anyone doing more traditional band recording will have to prepare for overdubbing right from the start of the recording process if it is to be successful.
...
Once you have a basic take, or a MIDI backing track, which sets the structure of your song, you can set things up to start the overdubbing process.

...sorry Sound On Sound, Jerome says you are wrong...

JAH wrote:You don't record audio overdubs over MIDI tracks.

JAH wrote:You may want to find another product that you can give a glowing endorsement to instead of debating with me for a product you obviously don't think highly of.

No thanks, I feel no need to latch on to any product, or manufacturer, and give it a constant, on-going, and relentless, rim job.

MPC-Tutor wrote:Okay, enough of the Simon-Jah show! - take it to PM guys.

Cheers.

Anyone else got anything useful to add? Otherwise I'll lock this as it seems to be done.

I'm done, lock or not, so whatever, lock if you must, but I won't be responding to his retarded cr ap, in this thread at least.

labcoats wrote:Folks are totally dreaming if they think the Ren will ever match the main big Daws out there. The resources required to get the Ren up to anything like the level of Cubase, Logic, Pro Tools is massive. There isnt a local shop to buy code for new features - I'll have a Rewire code please - doesn't work like that. Rewire alone would take a team of at least three programmers 6 - 9 months to code. Thats only one feature!

Yep, I just want to be able to record audio overdubs, even if they are as samples instead of audio tracks, while we wait to see what happens with audio tracks.

I too have my doubts they can give Jerome everything he wants in MPC audio tracks, as in matching what Pro Tools has after so many years of software development, anytime soon.

I also have my doubts that the income stream from the MPCs will support that much development, after paying for the marketing, for the length of time required for the product to mature to that state.

labcoats wrote:

JAH wrote:

I said what I meant. The MPC Ren is the first MPC with a Track Mixer with Insert FXs. In the past, we used Program Mixers. So no matter which sequence you used the Program in, it will have the same mixer levels and effects. You are confusing this by combining the Track Mixer and the Program Mixer. To see what I am saying...completely ignore the Track Mixer. Route all Pads in Programs to Outputs 1,2. You have now set up the Ren to perform like most hardware MPCs. Add effects in the program as you see fit. Now use this program in multiple sequences. Now when you adjust the effects, volume, pan, etc it is applied to all sequences. Boom..bam!

I acknowledge that some Ren users wants this functionality for Track Mixer. I think this is a good idea as long as it is an option. Because if I am working on 2 sequences and they are unrelated, I don't want the Sequence 1 Track Mixer changing what I am doing on Sequence 2.

People tend to confuse an MPC workflow with a DAW or simply use the MPC one way. An MPC Sequence can be either an entire Song or it can be a building block of a song where you string them together. When using the MPC Sequence as the entire song for linear recording, it performs exactly like a DAW would for MIDI and Plugin tracks. Then having multiple MPC sequences is like have multiple Projects of Pro Tools open. Adjust one Pro Tools Project doesn't impact the others you have open..does it?

For those that want to create multiple short sequences and string them together in Song Mode, then I understand the issue. But it isn't an issue if you use Program Mixer. Or if you do your actually mixing after you convert your Song back into a single Sequence where the mixer levels of Sequence 1 is applied to all other Sequences (typical MPC workflow). But as I pointed out above, it would be a nice feature request if there were a way to link Track Mixer across sequences. But this could be dicey if you don't set up each sequence the same. Because if Seq 1, Track 1 were drums...and Sequence 2, Track 1 were keys...you wouldn't want these two tracks linked.

Im not confusing anything. I dont mind the midi mixer implementation on any hardware MPC because I never mixed anything inside a hardware MPC. The Ren is completely different. No MPC has ever been able to load up VSTs and that changes the game massively. And its that which voids the 20+ year old midi mixer attached to sequences functionality which is exactly what they did with the Ren.

Programme mixer to mix their songs. Thats like mixing your song using your hardware volume control or VST volume controls. Jumping through a million hoops and even then you cant do so many normal things you need to.

People do use more than one sequence to construct their songs. I dont know of a single sequencer, daw, drum machine which restricts the user to one pattern.

Your suggesting
A: The 99 sequences are there for working on multiple multiple songs at the same time: - (nonsense and fantasy). Real producers work on one song and finish it. Their not 4 bar loop guys endlessly plodding around thinking their hot ****. What your saying is only stuff I ever read on forums made up by the very same people who claim they need their laptop at all times coz - u know they need to produce records whilst cruising at 33,000 feet. Its BS - I now because I happen to live in the real world.


B: No one would ever want to record their 'next sequences' movements to create a song arrangement on the fly: But of course producers have been working like that for decades. The MPC is also a performance instrument. Have you ever created an arrangement on the fly as you feel the vibe. Serious magic can happen - honestly!. The MPC allows you to do this but the feature is ruined by the mixers implementation.

But as I pointed out above, it would be a nice feature request if there were a way to link Track Mixer across sequences.

It shouldn't be a a feature. Its should be the default setting. The current implementation should have been the added feature.

Going way off topic but I will address this. Adding VST doesn't change anything drastically. VST Tracks are still MIDI. MPC Drum and Keygroup Tracks are still MIDI. Nobody was arguing the fact that the Ren's mixer is very similar to the mixer of 20 y/o MPCs. But Akai did add Track Mixer with actual Inserts which no other MPC has.

Now just because you or any number of folks use sequences as building blocks for songs doesn't mean everyone works that way. That would be kinda of ignorant to suggest everyone work the same way. But going back to the MPC 3000...read the manual. It clearly describes linear recording (which is what I do) and pattern based recording (which is what you do).

From MPC 3000 manual:
A sequence can be thought of as a segment of multitrack tape of
variable length. Depending on the sequence contents, it could be a
two-bar repeating drum pattern, an eight-bar verse, or an entire
200-bar multitrack composition with time signature and tempo
changes.

The 200-bar multitrack composition? That is how I used MPCs for 16 years and certainly not about to change my workflow because what someone in an internet forum tells me what 'real producers' do. The fact is, it's the same workflow that you see many (if not a majority) of folks use in their DAWs. So when I am making music, I may do 2-3 songs at a time. If I lose inspiration, I may simply pull of Sequence 2 and do a completely different song or maybe even a different variation of the first song. If the Track Mixer was changed to suit your whims, it will slam the door on many of us that work differently than you do. An option is the best way if Akai decides to implement your suggestion. *And since I communicate with developers on a daily basis, I will certainly put in a plug not to eliminate an essential feature. Again...I am talking about options.

Now the Next Sequence Mode has been available on MPCs for quite some time. And since the Ren hasn't changed what you can do with the Mixer but added to it, it is odd for you to say the Mixer ruins this feature. What ever you can do with the MPC 1000, 2500, 4000, and 5000 in Next Sequence Mode can be accomplished with the Ren...I believe exactly in 1.3 which wasn't the case in 1.2.

@SimonInAustralia
Sir, you need to re-read the article you wrote. You are misunderstanding it. When they are talking overdubbing on the same track, they are talking about 'MIDI'. When they are talking about additional overdubbing, the article is talking about locking certain tracks and recording on other tracks....multitrack recording. You do not record MIDI on Track 1 and then overdub your vocals on the same track...which seems like you were suggesting in your previous posts. Your vocals will be on Track 2 which would be an audio track of course.

You can have doubts as much as you like. But I have seen first hand how far Akai has taken this product. 1 year ago, there were forum members much like yourself doubting Akai could bring the solid timing of hardware MPCs to a computer. (Labcoats...were you part of this discussion?). Fast forward to today and you don't see any posts talking about timing and latency. The Ren's timing is as solid as any MPC I have ever used.

As far as my comments about staying away from DAWs....I am speaking of staying away from anything that isn't an MPC DAW...the one with a dedicated controller.

The other DAWs on the market do not have a controller like the Ren for music production....sample editing, etc. You do pretty much everything with a mouse. Doing everything with a mouse is not fun or intuitive at all to me. But using a mouse for certain functions are superior to using this dedicated hardware. Manual slicing is one of those tasks. It is certainly significantly faster to add manual slices points by clicking on the waveform then using a split region function in the hardware. Likewise...it is certainly faster to open up a track and have it display all the additional takes underneath it. Then quickly use you mouse to slice and silence/delete parts of these takes to comp a perfect vocal track.

If there is a piece of hardware on this planet that can accomplish this without using a mouse...please let me know what this product is. I will buy it, use it, and try to convince the Ren's developers to employ the same functionality.

JAH wrote:I said what I meant. The MPC Ren is the first MPC with a Track Mixer with Insert FXs. In the past, we used Program Mixers. So no matter which sequence you used the Program in, it will have the same mixer levels and effects.

In the past MPC mixers have provided a Master/Sequence/Program type setting, to select where the settings are sourced from.

Users expect this same functionality in the new Track Mixer.

As you have pointed out, it already does this in Song Mode, where it uses the first sequence Track Mixer settings for all other sequences in a song.

It already does it.

Users want a setting to do this in their normal Main Mode workflow, not just in Song Mode.

JAH wrote:I acknowledge that some Ren users wants this functionality for Track Mixer. I think this is a good idea as long as it is an option. Because if I am working on 2 sequences and they are unrelated, I don't want the Sequence 1 Track Mixer changing what I am doing on Sequence 2.

You think it is a good idea, so WTF is all this debate about, say you agree, STFU, and move on.

JAH wrote:An MPC Sequence can be either an entire Song or it can be a building block of a song where you string them together. When using the MPC Sequence as the entire song for linear recording, it performs exactly like a DAW would for MIDI and Plugin tracks. Then having multiple MPC sequences is like have multiple Projects of Pro Tools open. Adjust one Pro Tools Project doesn't impact the others you have open..does it?

No, you are still thinking that MPC sequences equate to Pro Tools sessions, they don't FFS.

You can have multiple long songs in a single Pro Tools session in exactly the same way you can have multiple long sequences in the MPC Software Project.

JAH wrote:For those that want to create multiple short sequences and string them together in Song Mode, then I understand the issue.

You don't understand the issue, this is about users that want to use multiple short sequences in Main Mode, not Song Mode.

JAH wrote:But as I pointed out above, it would be a nice feature request if there were a way to link Track Mixer across sequences. But this could be dicey if you don't set up each sequence the same. Because if Seq 1, Track 1 were drums...and Sequence 2, Track 1 were keys...you wouldn't want these two tracks linked.

You have been arguing against it the whole f'ing thread, now it is a nice feature.

It is exactly the same as the way Song Mode has always been, you have to plan things so the the track types/usage is the same across all sequences, so that when joined together into a single sequence, it works as expected using the track settings from the first sequence.

It has always been like this.

JAH wrote:Im not confusing anything. I dont mind the midi mixer implementation on any hardware MPC because I never mixed anything inside a hardware MPC. The Ren is completely different. No MPC has ever been able to load up VSTs and that changes the game massively. And its that which voids the 20+ year old midi mixer attached to sequences functionality which is exactly what they did with the Ren.

Bullsh it, the Program Mixer is still there, it is not void, they added a track mixer and did not provide an option to choose where the settings are sourced from.

The need for the option to choose where the mixer settings are sourced from is required by MPC users, whether you agree or not.

JAH wrote:People do use more than one sequence to construct their songs. I dont know of a single sequencer, daw, drum machine which restricts the user to one pattern.

So why are you going on about how you create songs with a single sequence.

Why are you trying to argue that a single Pro Tools session restricts the user to one pattern, and is therefore equivalent to a single MPC Sequence.

JAH wrote:Your suggesting
A: The 99 sequences are there for working on multiple multiple songs at the same time: - (nonsense and fantasy). Real producers work on one song and finish it. Their not 4 bar loop guys endlessly plodding around thinking their hot ****. What your saying is only stuff I ever read on forums made up by the very same people who claim they need their laptop at all times coz - u know they need to produce records whilst cruising at 33,000 feet. Its BS - I now because I happen to live in the real world.

The 99 sequences are there to use however you choose.

Whether that is one song per sequence, or multiple sequences written to be linked together, it makes no difference.

What is your point now?

JAH wrote:B: No one would ever want to record their 'next sequences' movements to create a song arrangement on the fly: But of course producers have been working like that for decades. The MPC is also a performance instrument. Have you ever created an arrangement on the fly as you feel the vibe. Serious magic can happen - honestly!. The MPC allows you to do this but the feature is ruined by the mixers implementation.

Why are you repeating things that you have been arguing against the whole thread?

Switching between sequences on the fly is ruined for some users, as they expect the mixer settings to stay the same, and they are changing.

JAH wrote:Going way off topic but I will address this. Adding VST doesn't change anything drastically. VST Tracks are still MIDI. MPC Drum and Keygroup Tracks are still MIDI. Nobody was arguing the fact that the Ren's mixer is very similar to the mixer of 20 y/o MPCs. But Akai did add Track Mixer with actual Inserts which no other MPC has.

Now just because you or any number of folks use sequences as building blocks for songs doesn't mean everyone works that way. That would be kinda of ignorant to suggest everyone work the same way.

Just like you are being ignorant in suggesting that everyone should be happy with the Track Mixer settings being sourced from the sequence, instead of having a Master/Sequence/Program type setting, because it works for your single long sequences.

The MPC is designed to work with smaller sections of a song, as individual sequences, that is just the way the MPC workflow is.

JAH wrote:But going back to the MPC 3000...read the manual. It clearly describes linear recording (which is what I do) and pattern based recording (which is what you do).

From MPC 3000 manual:
A sequence can be thought of as a segment of multitrack tape of
variable length. Depending on the sequence contents, it could be a
two-bar repeating drum pattern, an eight-bar verse, or an entire
200-bar multitrack composition with time signature and tempo
changes.

Yes, and there needs to be a setting in the Track Mixer, as there has been in previous MPC mixers, like the MPC3000, to choose where the mixer settings are sourced from.

JAH wrote:The 200-bar multitrack composition? That is how I used MPCs for 16 years and certainly not about to change my workflow because what someone in an internet forum tells me what 'real producers' do.

No one is telling you that you have to change your workflow at all.

You are telling everyone else they have to change their workflow, rather than expect the standard MPC mixer settings.

JAH wrote:The fact is, it's the same workflow that you see many (if not a majority) of folks use in their DAWs. So when I am making music, I may do 2-3 songs at a time. If I lose inspiration, I may simply pull of Sequence 2 and do a completely different song or maybe even a different variation of the first song.

Most MPC users work with smaller sequences, and link them together, not with single sequences that are songs.

That is how the MPC is designed.

The mixers need to support this.

JAH wrote:If the Track Mixer was changed to suit your whims, it will slam the door on many of us that work differently than you do.

Bullsh it.

Here you are trying to invalidate their feature suggestion, calling it a whim.

If the standard Master/Sequence/Program type of settings were available in the Track Mixer, you could set it to Sequence and work the way you are now, others could set it to Master and work the way they expect based on standard MPC workflow.

Adding this option does not slam the door on anyone.

JAH wrote:An option is the best way if Akai decides to implement your suggestion. *And since I communicate with developers on a daily basis, I will certainly put in a plug not to eliminate an essential feature. Again...I am talking about options.

So is everyone else, so WTF are you debating this for?

I pity those poor developers, I really do!

JAH wrote:Now the Next Sequence Mode has been available on MPCs for quite some time.

Since the very f'ing beginning, it is the way the MPC works, it is the MPC Main Mode, it is the MPC core feature.

JAH wrote:And since the Ren hasn't changed what you can do with the Mixer but added to it, it is odd for you to say the Mixer ruins this feature. What ever you can do with the MPC 1000, 2500, 4000, and 5000 in Next Sequence Mode can be accomplished with the Ren...I believe exactly in 1.3 which wasn't the case in 1.2.

No, it has added an additional mixer that does not work the way MPC mixers need to work.

MPC mixers need to have a Master/Sequence/Program type setting.

This new mixer doesn't.

JAH wrote:@SimonInAustralia
Sir, you need to re-read the article you wrote. You are misunderstanding it. When they are talking overdubbing on the same track, they are talking about 'MIDI'.

I am not talking about overdubbing on the same track, I am talking about overdubbing audio on top of existing MIDI or audio tracks, on a new audio track.

That is what overdubbing IS!

JAH wrote:When they are talking about additional overdubbing, the article is talking about locking certain tracks and recording on other tracks....multitrack recording.

Yep, they are talking about overdubbing, as I am.

JAH wrote:You do not record MIDI on Track 1 and then overdub your vocals on the same track...which seems like you were suggesting in your previous posts.

I never suggested that, you misunderstood it, or did not take the time (or have the ability) to understand it.

JAH wrote:Your vocals will be on Track 2 which would be an audio track of course.

Exactly, your MIDI composition is on track 1, you overdub vocals on track 2.

You overdub vocals on top of the MIDI, or audio, composition.

I never said anything about recording audio INTO a MIDI track, that is you making that up

That is what overdubbing is, quit trying to argue against it, because you are making yourself look more and more foolish all the time that you try.

JAH wrote:You can have doubts as much as you like. But I have seen first hand how far Akai has taken this product. 1 year ago, there were forum members much like yourself doubting Akai could bring the solid timing of hardware MPCs to a computer. (Labcoats...were you part of this discussion?). Fast forward to today and you don't see any posts talking about timing and latency. The Ren's timing is as solid as any MPC I have ever used.

I want to see a post about latency.

You say that you run the audio buffers at 512 samples most of the time, that is a ridiculous amount of latency for a software instrument that you interact with in real time.

I want to know how it runs at a buffer setting of 64 or 32 samples, and how it handles plugins at that buffer setting before running into audio glitches.

The timing should be rock solid, being computer based, it should be running off the wordclock, so should be sample accurate, it shouldn't need to be discussed, unless they have f'ed it up.

Another issue regarding latency is external MIDI timing, everything internal should be locked to the wordclock, and rock solid, what might be an issue is external MIDI timing, and any latency/jitter in the MIDI data, which has always been an issue with computer based MIDI.



Really, you need to quit debating this, you make yourself seem more and more ignorant with every post, and seem to be trying to twist everything around so that you are right, when you have posted so much incorrect cr ap.

SimonInAustralia wrote:

JAH wrote:You can have doubts as much as you like. But I have seen first hand how far Akai has taken this product. 1 year ago, there were forum members much like yourself doubting Akai could bring the solid timing of hardware MPCs to a computer. (Labcoats...were you part of this discussion?). Fast forward to today and you don't see any posts talking about timing and latency. The Ren's timing is as solid as any MPC I have ever used.

I want to see a post about latency.

You say that you run the audio buffers at 512 samples most of the time, that is a ridiculous amount of latency for a software instrument that you interact with in real time.

I want to know how it runs at a buffer setting of 64 or 32 samples, and how it handles plugins at that buffer setting before running into audio glitches.

The timing should be rock solid, being computer based, it should be running off the wordclock, so should be sample accurate, it shouldn't need to be discussed, unless they have f'ed it up.

Another issue regarding latency is external MIDI timing, everything internal should be locked to the wordclock, and rock solid, what might be an issue is external MIDI timing, and any latency/jitter in the MIDI data, which has always been an issue with computer based MIDI.



Really, you need to quit debating this, you make yourself seem more and more ignorant with every post, and seem to be trying to twist everything around so that you are right, when you have posted so much incorrect cr ap.

I was that member who doubted the "custom coded" driver last summer. I jokingly said you all would end up with a Ploytec ADAPTED driver, which is not a custom driver. (See RME, Apogee, MOTU and others for well written actual custom drivers with zero code adapted from a third party).

The thing is you all did get a Ploytec adapted driver. Given that and the low quality interface in the Ren I bet you do have to run a lot of 512 sample buffers to do much. I would guess that the Apollo Jerome has next to the Ren if used over the internal would win in any 1:1 test.

No 512 sample will feel like an MPC or a hardware synth. 128 is very nice but 64, 32 are needed to get extremely close to hardware feel. So I also wonder how much the Ren's interface can take at low latencies.

Just wanted to clarify how I was used as an example of well...nothing in Jerome's quote. He must have thought it was labcoat's when he "challenged" me to "prove" hardware MPC's are actually low latency. To which I replied I wouldn't be donning any labcoats to prove something accepted as 100% fact. (HW MPC = low latency)

Back to the audio tracks discussion...