can it do this? [Immediate play mode and next sequence pads]

mute groups will only mute the last pad hit from the same group, a pad that follows will not be muted.

FredFrank wrote:

cool let us know how it goes, that's very intresting how that kick mutes situation you described turned out, you'd think it's not suppose to work that way, it almost sounds like a bug

I tried it out and it did just like I figured. The mute program had no effect. So that wouldn't work. It's not a bug though. My MPC4000 does this as well. The mute groups only work within a program, not globally.

mikolo wrote:

mute groups will only mute the last pad hit from the same group, a pad that follows will not be muted.

Point well made. I've somewhat briefly thought about this for a second but never really gave it any serious thought. You are absolutely right. I'm going to get my request ready and email JJ. I think some of us, including myself, would like to see quantized track mute groups and pad mutes in the JJ OS, so I'm going to see what I can do to at least try to make that happen.

Alright everyone, I just emailed JJ a request for the following enhancement:


1. With the addition of a new "Track Mute Group Assign" column in the track list
window accessible from the MAIN screen, individual tracks can be assigned to
a "track mute group."

2. The current track mute screen would be replaced by a new "track mute group"
screen in which groups of tracks can be muted simultaneously.

3. A new pad mute screen would also be created in which pads can be
muted/unmuted within the currently active track.

4. All Track Mute Group and Pad Mute events are quantizable to the time correction
grid.

5. All Track Mute Group and Pad Mute events are recordable.

6. All Track Mute Group and Pad Mute events are editable from the sequence edit
screen.

6a.) A new view called "TRACK MUTE GROUPS" would be added to sequence edit
screen in which track mute group events can be edited. Track mute group
events are not recorded on to individual tracks. Therefore, the "F2 - TRACK"
function is disabled while in "TRACK MUTE GROUPS" view.

6b.) Pad mute events are recorded on to the currently active track when in
the "Pad Mute" screen. The pad mute events can be edited in the sequence
edit screen for the track on which they were recorded.

I've also attached the following jpeg file as well explaining this in detail:






I hope JJ can come through with this. I would sure be a nice addition.

it's a fantastic idea!, JJ you can do it

if he does i'll get os 2xl

just to play devils advocate:

pad mute: why not just move the pad events to their own track & mute the tracks?

track mute groups: why not just group the events into 1 track ahead of time & mute the tracks?

for flexibility: why not make copies of your main sequence and just create different grouping / mutes in each & then handle the mutings by just changing sequences in the NEXT SEQUENCE screen? when you jump to the next sequence all your parts will already be muted (you could even just delete the events from the sequence).

it sounds like all this could be achieved by just making the NEXT SEQUENCE screen able to switch quantized (instead of just IMMEDIATE & END OF SEQUENCE).


i guess i just don't see the value much in quantized muting. i'd rather just do it by ear with some quick hands in the TRACK MUTE screen.


still, you made a good effort on explaining your request to JJ. the screenshots you made along with the explanation should make it easy for him to understand.

pad mute: why not just move the pad events to their own track & mute the tracks?

I agree. Actually, that's how I work. However, some people might not work that way and like to record everything on one track. Pad mutes would give them that flexibility.

track mute groups: why not just group the events into 1 track ahead of time & mute the tracks?

I don't quite get what you're saying here.

for flexibility: why not make copies of your main sequence and just create different grouping / mutes in each & then handle the mutings by just changing sequences in the NEXT SEQUENCE screen? when you jump to the next sequence all your parts will already be muted (you could even just delete the events from the sequence).

That's right. As a matter or fact, that's how I construct songs. I use a bunch of sequences which would be different variations of the same pattern with different parts muted/deleted etc..... Then I could piece them together using song mode. Then again, I think it would be better if I could just consolidate all of my breaks and pattern variations into one sequence and just "group" mute/unmute them when needed.

it sounds like all this could be achieved by just making the NEXT SEQUENCE screen able to switch quantized (instead of just IMMEDIATE & END OF SEQUENCE).

True. However, the NEXT SEQUENCE screen is ok for live playing but the NEXT SEQUENCE events can't be recorded like track mutes can, which means you can't record your live sequence changes into the sequencer. That's the drawback. Now I did have another proposal in mind to just simply make the NEXT SEQUENCE events recordable since they are already quantizable. However, I think it would be more conservative to simply implement track mute groups and pad mutes and consolidate everything into one sequence because I end up converting songs (when using song mode) back to sequences anyway. That way, you don't really need all of those separate sequences. However, you can still use separate sequences in combination with track mute groups and pad mutes and use song mode to convert them all to one sequence if you want to. Or you can use the NEXT SEQUENCE screen to play live if you want. It's simply the matter of personal taste and how you like to work. I think this implementation is flexible because it gives the user an additional option that doesn't currently exist on the MPC1000/2500. I think these features are already implemented on the MPC5000. The user can always choose what works best for him/her.

We can definitely get by without quantized muting. As a matter or fact, we can definitely get by and still make music without a track mute screen at all. However, this request was made for one reason and one reason alone, CONVENIENCE. It doesn't hurt to make things a little easier for the musician to save time and get on with making music and getting those additional melodies recorded and arranged "quickly" without losing inspiration as a result of a tedious workflow.

I also found out from experience that the outcome of music can sound different (sometimes better) when randomly muting and unmuting tracks live because the music would have a live feel to it as opposed to manually copying patterns and programming them into a sequencer a specified number of times. I sometimes find that copying and pasting patterns into a sequencer tends to make the music sound too computery and perhaps predictable and boring. It's a mental thing. I gotta hear my music and feel it when I'm making it. If I'm not feeling it and it's boring to me, I imagine it would probably be boring to anyone else who listens to it. Random live changes (pattern veriations, breakdowns, fill-ins etc...) in the track mute screen would help big time with that. That's just my opinion.

I received this response from JJ.

Your request mail was sent to JJ.However, JJ is now busy with the sequencer software development of the WINDOWS version.Although the bug of JJ OS is corrected immediately, it becomes to consider a request, after the sequencer software of the WINDOWS version is completed.Therefore, it cannot reply immediately to whether your request is possible. Thank you.

As you can see, MPC OS bug fixes and the Windows Sequencer are first priorities on JJ's platter. From the sound of it, my request will not go unnoticed and it will eventually be taken under consideration at a later date once the Windows Sequencer project is completed. This is definitely good news and it will allow us to have something to look forward to in the future. So there's still hope, although there's no guarantee JJ will be able to implement this request. However, I feel optimistic and hope to find out later that it is possible. We will all know eventually.

Your request mail was sent to JJ.However, JJ is now busy with the sequencer software development of the WINDOWS version.Although the bug of JJ OS is corrected immediately, it becomes to consider a request, after the sequencer software of the WINDOWS version is completed.Therefore, it cannot reply immediately to whether your request is possible. Thank you.

i knew this would happen. no wonder 2xl is hardly getting any updates. let alone os 2.

JJ is scramblin for that money.
hope he sells more than 2 copies of his WINDOWS sequencer software.


most likely tho he's just trying to get something practical on his resume so he can apply for a real programming gig.
no potential employer is going to be interested in someone whose spent the past 2 years coding for some obsolete MPC processor.

the days of rapid MPC upgrades / fixes are OVER.

kvmoore wrote:We can definitely get by without quantized muting. As a matter or fact, we can definitely get by and still make music without a track mute screen at all.

Making music, yes, if sequencing it. For myself playing live it is essential and in fact quantised makes a lot of difference as I may want to bring in and out a few different parts which are on different track-mute pages. Personally I find it 100% essential.

kvmoore wrote:
"That's right. As a matter or fact, that's how I construct songs. I use a bunch of sequences which would be different variations of the same pattern with different parts muted/deleted etc..... Then I could piece them together using song mode. Then again, I think it would be better if I could just consolidate all of my breaks and pattern variations into one sequence and just "group" mute/unmute them when needed."

This brings up a question I've been trying to find the answer to, but up till now haven't had much luck. When building a song, is it possible to call the same pattern several times with different tracks muted each time? Or do I have to copy the pattern several times, and erase the tracks I don't want and build it that way?

As far as JJ's response, it really does seem like this may all be coming to an end. In the last few months, since the release of version 2xl, there have been very few updates. Compared only to JJ's own past record for releasing updates to a new OS version. It really does appear that the windows sequencer is now his top priority. At the same time though, I don't fault the man. He has to pay bills and make a living just like the rest of us. I'll download the Windows sequencer, but only because it's from JJ. We've all had one hell of a run! I've been messing with MIDI equipment since I was in junior high and I have never seen anything like this in regards to bug fixes. Not to mention adding features! My only hope is that the big companies that still make hardware catch on to this, and the way companies deal with costomer service improves dramatically. I won't hold my breath, of course. Good times my friends...

wudsiba wrote: I've been messing with MIDI equipment since I was in junior high and I have never seen anything like this in regards to bug fixes. Not to mention adding features! My only hope is that the big companies that still make hardware catch on to this, and the way companies deal with costomer service improves dramatically. I won't hold my breath, of course. Good times my friends...

Access Music (makers of the Virus series of synths) are about the only hardware manufacturer I can think of who do. Updates of models out of productions. Features unlocked on older models, rather than just for those that have bought the latest and greatest. Answers within a working day to question to the support team, even if of a technical nature I would expect a reply from (example exact model number of the Alps pots used for their knobs.) I'm sure there must be others but most I've had to deal with have been a pain (actually Allen & Heath were wonderful when I had a PSU go a while out of guarantee but their type of hardware doesn't benefit from updates as much as synth etc manufacturers.)


Unfortunately I've only just got an MPC2k5 and think I've pretty much missed the boat with JJOS support but I hope he still continues to iron out bugs and gives us releases everysooften, even if not on the scale as before and with less new feature request implemented.

Access Music (makers of the Virus series of synths) are about the only hardware manufacturer I can think of who do. Updates of models out of productions. Features unlocked on older models, rather than just for those that have bought the latest and greatest. Answers within a working day to question to the support team, even if of a technical nature I would expect a reply from (example exact model number of the Alps pots used for their knobs.)

Wow! Updates on out of production models and features unlocked on older models. That is above and beyond. Good to hear that there are companies that do this kind of thing.

Actually, I doubt that JJ will completely give up on updating his latest software. I imagine he will keep fixing bugs until XL is a solid OS. With all he has done in the past, I just can't see him dropping it all. I just think that the days of putting in a request for a new feature and seeing it added in the next week or so are over. Even with what is available now, I think we all came out okay.

wudsiba wrote:Wow! Updates on out of production models and features unlocked on older models. That is above and beyond. Good to hear that there are companies that do this kind of thing.

OK I'm not talking for years and years down the line but the Virus A had its last OS update in 2002 whereas production stopped in 1999, similar for later models. The TI has recently been upgraded with an extra processor and more bells and whistles but the OS has been made available as a free download for all existing TI owners so they get access to all the new effects and features, just not the extra power from the hardware upgrade. I don't know if you would call it truly outstanding but it does seem to be more than most manufacturers are willing to do.

wudsiba wrote:This brings up a question I've been trying to find the answer to, but up till now haven't had much luck. When building a song, is it possible to call the same pattern several times with different tracks muted each time? Or do I have to copy the pattern several times, and erase the tracks I don't want and build it that way?

You have to copy the pattern several times and erase the tracks you don't want and build from there.

wudsiba wrote:Actually, I doubt that JJ will completely give up on updating his latest software. I imagine he will keep fixing bugs until XL is a solid OS. With all he has done in the past, I just can't see him dropping it all. I just think that the days of putting in a request for a new feature and seeing it added in the next week or so are over. Even with what is available now, I think we all came out okay.

Yeah. I can agree with you here. To tell ya the truth, I wouldn't get so worked up about worrying whether JJ's going to drop the ball on the MPC OS because I don't think that's going to happen. I think he just simply put it on the back burner for now so he can go ahead and get that Windows sequencer developed and released. He'll eventually come back to the MPC OS2XL and get it as rock solid as OS1. Since OS2XL is the most recently developed OS for the MPC, I think he might even consider adding new features later on like the ones above if possible and if time is available to do so.

However, I definitely can't see JJ developing a new MPC OS such as an OS3. I think once JJ completely finishes with OS2XL, he'll just concentrate on the Window's sequencer because I believe he'll make a heck of a lot more money off of it considering the fact there are a lot more PC computer users out there than Akai MPC hardware sampling drum machine users such as ourselves.

Hope he does add those features though. We'll just have to wait and see.