Couple new vidz sequencer

roxstar wrote:I'm no programmer...You could be right, or wrong, who knows. It doesn't matter what the MPC is capable of if the sequence and programs are loaded in the computer.. Actually, I'd expect more out the software than what the MPC can actually do. I'd like to have the option to use plugins/VST's eventually added to the software. I think JJ has pushed the 1000/2500 to it's limit, but with the computer, the sky is the limit.
There's so many ways that programmers can cheat when it comes to programming on the computer. Pre-made templates are available for all kinds of applications. I would think it should be easier to develop upgrades for the PC than the dated hardware in the MPC's. Think about it...if he wanted to add an eq, there are thousands of free eq-plugins that JJ wouldn't have to program. Audacity is open source and can read VST's
It maybe a lot easier than we think..

It may be easier, but most of the things you are talking about is adding (third part) functions to the sequencer, not replicating the parameters of the MPC.
No pre made filter or envelope algorithm can be used to truthfully simulate the functions in the MPC, and this is what people are asking for. To let the sequencer internally and truthfully replay the patterns and programs you´ve made in your MPC.
What good is it to make everything and fine tune it in the MPC only to have it sound all of and awkward when you lift it into the sequencer to track it out? And that is exactly what´ll happen to your layered drums and filtered basses when the parameters of your third part filter are set to different frequencies than the MPC one or your envelopes is working to fast/slow.

To truthfully track stuff made in the MPC in this software the MPC must be emulated in some way. That might very well be doable but I have no idea how hard that is and I´m having my own doubt it´ll be made within the first generations of this thing based on JJ´s initial claim that this sequencer wouldn´t have much to do with the MPC at all.
Although the later clips tend to lean towards the contrary to his first statement I´m still doubting this is the blessing everone is hoping it´ll be.

and if/when it's not, a small but noisy handful of people will boo it to death before it's even completely out of the womb

ryssen wrote:No pre made filter or envelope algorithm can be used to truthfully simulate the functions in the MPC, and this is what people are asking for. To let the sequencer internally and truthfully replay the patterns and programs you´ve made in your MPC.
What good is it to make everything and fine tune it in the MPC only to have it sound all off and awkward when you lift it into the sequencer to track it out? And that is exactly what´ll happen to your layered drums and filtered basses when the parameters of your third party filter are set to different frequencies than the MPC one or your envelopes is working too fast/slow.

thank you. this is EXACTLY what i have been trying to tell people but they don't seem to get it. if you want to track out in the software you'll need the whole mpc 100% accurately emulated in software or it wont work.

and as i've said before: the day JJ releases a fully functioning MPC emulated in software is the day Akais legal goons bust down his door and drag him off to jail. Akai has been content to let JJ do his thing (hazy legal issues and all) because at the end of the day he is helping them sell their hardware, which is where they make their money.

if JJ creates an "MPC in software", then that is a dis-incentive for people to buy their MPCs which will effect their profits and that is when they will take notice & the legal sh!t will hit the fan - so to speak.

Its not illegal to emulate the functions of the mpc in software.

Its really not that hard to map mpc program parameter values to cutoff frequency of any existing software filter. Its a basic 2-pole filter, and there is already a table floating around that matches the mpc's 0-100 values to cutoff frequencies in Hz. Plus JJ has the the code for the mpc filters. Infact I believe a much better sounding filter could be implemented in software, there's nothing special about the 1k's filter.

The envelopes would be even easier to implement, and could be designed to be identical without even having acess to the orignal source code.

These are the two most important parts to emulate. Things like the 'sound' of the mpc1k (DA's and amplifier circuits) are pretty insignificant. Stuff like effects is easily ported.

In the end I'd be happy with software that could render my sequences, even if it didn't sound exactly the same. As long as the filter cutoff values and amp envelopes corresponded. I think you could actually get a better sound out of software filters than is possible with the limitations of the mpc.

I'm not sure why people aren't expecting the FX to sound exactly the same. JJ has the source code and could recreate the sound 100% if he so chooses. It is just math after all and is nothing like trying to emulate analogue hardware. Ignoring the possible legal ramifications, JJ could quite likely recompile the source code for the Windows platform. He's obviously a competent programmer and even if the FX are written in assembly I am sure he can port them over.

Too much rampant speculation and opinions without enough factual content flying around though. Who am I to judge though .

"thank you. this is EXACTLY what i have been trying to tell people but they don't seem to get it. if you want to track out in the software you'll need the whole mpc 100% accurately emulated in software or it wont work."

It's already working..the software can read/play the SEQ/PRG files... do you really think the filters/effects are so complicated that a single/dual/quad core PC can't replicate it, or get really close? I've duplicated the MPC's effects within Audacity. Fiddle some knobs, and an echo effect in an SP-303/404 can sound JUST like delay in the MPC. "100% accurately emulated"...Really, it's not that serious.
Nothing sounds exactly the same once it's emulated on different hardware and most people aren't doing anything super complicated on their MPC's anyways. Boom, Bap, sample, done, but I'm not here to say what JJ should do, and what we should or shouldn't expect, but why assume "it's not, or "it can't", when anything is possible? The software is in VERY early stages..who knows what it maybe capable of in 2 months? If JJ's big idea is really a "basic" sequencer, he may as well stop what he's doing. If I can get the majority of my work done on the MPC, and arrange/render on the PC, then JJ got my money, and if he falls short, I'll keep my money!

So much negative talk here. How about waiting until the software is available, testing it, making suggestions for improvements, reporting bugs, etc? I'm not sure whether it will get my football team back into the Premiership whilst pouring the perfect pint of Guinness and teaching me the skills of Bruce Lee, but I'm really looking forward to testing this new JJ Sequencer anyway.

Give it a chance...and then some time once we're all testing it. However in-depth it ends up being, there is no MPC feature that cannot be replicated in an app running on a modern PC.

G4s

Has anyone who has seen most of JJ's vids ever hear a sound in the back round that sounds like a scientists lab? No matter the video, I hear it... kind of makes me vision Dr. Frankenstein's lair!!! LOL!


Now back to the program:

It's cool.

identical fx is no biggie, most people use the onboard as sketch fx anyway dont they?

bulk export of individual tracks would still be killer even if the filters werent identical.

roxstar wrote:It's already working..the software can read/play the SEQ/PRG files...

Read and play is one thing, truthful and exact playback another.

roxstar wrote:Ido you really think the filters/effects are so complicated that a single/dual/quad core PC can't replicate it, or get really close?

I don´t think anybody is so stupid that he or she thinks that the number crunching in a MPC 1000/2500 would outrun a modern computer processor. If I remember correctly the processor in the 1000 was mostly used in cellphones and it clocks well below 200 mHz.
What can be complicated though is to make a software application function within a new hardware enviroment, That is why you can´t turn your Nintendo into an X-Box, load an iPhone OS into your Samsung phone etc, unless your level of geekery and corporation insight is enourmous.
JJ has the insight and knowledge on the OS and clearly some skills when it comes to coding for Windows which speaks in his behalf. But even with JJ´s skills this process of emulating the MPC could take some time, and as one of the first (no removed) statments on his page was that the sequencer would be "mpc unrelated" I´m not sure that the work of emulating the MPC is top priority.
But then again, his statement could be a result of bad english which has been responsible for confusion in earlier JJ matters. It could also be that JJ changed his course during the project.
But I for one am not holding my breath that initially this thing will do everything one would want it to do.

roxstar wrote:I've duplicated the MPC's effects within Audacity. Fiddle some knobs, and an echo effect in an SP-303/404 can sound JUST like delay in the MPC. "100% accurately emulated"...Really, it's not that serious.
Nothing sounds exactly the same once it's emulated on different hardware...

Once again, effects is a whole other game. Say youre having 3 sounds stacked on a pad, balanced very precise in level to get the texture and timbre you want and then you lift it into another application and the balance is all off. You have to manually go in and re-balance your stuff.
How would you like if your deep, woobly dubstep-bass which you´ve spent hours on the MPC getting just right only has the freq of the LFO right when "emulated"? Yes, the filter and tune modulation is there, but it starts at the wrong levels and as the depth parameters isn´t consistent with the range of the MPC´s the modulation is to weak or over done. On top of that the slight resonance you´ve originally applied sounds vulgar and takes over due to the much wider resonance peak of the "emulation".
You just have to get in there, redo most of the work already done just retuning parameters. Where´s the gain in that?
An simulation of the MPC within this sequencer or as a stand alone application must be the actual OS code, emulated, ported or re-written to run in a PC enviroment, not some chaining together of existing VST´s, effects and snippets of public domain code. Otherwise it won´t save time but rather consume it trying to retune your programs to come out the way one intended while setting them up.

roxstar wrote:...and most people aren't doing anything super complicated on their MPC's anyways. Boom, Bap, sample, done

Here you´re obviously speaking for yourself.

roxstar wrote:but I'm not here to say what JJ should do, and what we should or shouldn't expect, but why assume "it's not, or "it can't", when anything is possible? The software is in VERY early stages..who knows what it maybe capable of in 2 months?

True, the same applies to the fact that many are applying their wildest dreams on this sequencer as well as JJ´s OS´s. If the majority of people is getting really hyped up about how this thing will make tracking their stuff so much faster and how seemless and quick the integration will be, is it wrong for a few voices to speak up and say that it might not live up to their high expectations?

roxstar wrote:If I can get the majority of my work done on the MPC, and arrange/render on the PC, then JJ got my money

This also calls for a truthful, true emulation of the MPC. Historically within the MPC 1000 OS there have been minute changes that has caused alot of work to make up for, or left you to downgrade until your work was done.
We who experienced the shift in levels that came along when Akai switched amp curves between two updates know that a change of a "simple" parameter which might seem small renders a lot of work to compensate.
Anybody remembered JJ removing the original Akai nano attack on all playback? A necessary thing to do which nonetheless caused a whole lot of extra work re-trimming your stuff.
The switch in real time control in JJ OS 1 that came along somewhere in the middle of it´s lifecycle **** up most of the automation for all those who didn´t "Boom, Bap, sample, done".
Emulation need to be spot on, otherwise it´ll just create more work than it saves for many people who entirely or mainly rely on their MPC when it comes to composing and arranging.

So much passion in that topic. Just wait and hate.

is this just going to be for windows ..if so I cant use it so who cares ......I wanna see a video of the old simult working on os2xl now that WOULD BE COOL

I give up. You win. Judging the unfinished video, we should all conclude the sequencer will not, will never be, and isn't possible to satisfy wishful dreamers.

I think this is a very cool idea. This is the first time anyone has created software that you can directly import a hardware sequencers' data. I see many possibilities. Here are a list of my thoughts.

1. I think directly importing your mpc patterns and sound will sound different on the pc.
2. Every piece of data(cutoff, ADSR, resonance, etc.) can be ported over because it is all midi parameters. When importing a box could open and ask "Check which parameters you would like to export??"
3. The software could open up new and better fx's and options for your music like 12 bit fx or quick copying and pasting of your patterns.
4. I think that the software should have common seq features like audio tracks and a midi clock so you could sync your MPC and record the audio tracks that would sound diff if you just exported them over ya dig.
5. Shit gotta sound good.
6. Shit gotta work lol
6. Light on the processor.
7. A rewire mode would be cool do be able to use in your favorite seq program.

I think that this just opens up a whole new way of using hardware/software point blank. I would be happy just to see it be reliable with just the basic ability to port over your sequences and render into a song.

roxstar wrote:I give up. You win. Judging the unfinished video, we should all conclude the sequencer will not, will never be, and isn't possible to satisfy wishful dreamers.

Yes, my point exactly. *sigh*