FMajor wrote:For me its funny to do so much comparison to the MPC....how could you replace a 4 midi output bearing midi production center with a "Maschine" that only has 1 midi output? If this were meant to be an MPC, version 1.0 would have been drastically different imo. All of these MPC-like features are the result of NI listening to its user's feature requests, because many MPC users are looking for this solution. It wont help all MPC users, thats for sure. I think NI is smart for listening to the requests of the MPC users because it has broadened the product's scope, but I still say its not an MPC. If I want a Bentley I will buy a Bentley, and conversely if I want a smart car I will buy a smart car, but I wont sit up and complain why it doesnt look nor function like a Bentley. I just care about the results.
How is this topic any different than the 1000s of threads on the internet (Logic Forum, Nuendo/Cubase Forum, Pro Tools Forum, MV Forum, Fantom Forum, etc)? All of these products were released with a certain feature set. And based on the needs of the consumers, their products were further developed. When I purchased my MPC 5000 and Fantom G, they didn't support keygroup programs and multisampling. Through numerous threads such as these, both were added to these workstations. So while these products were smart cars when they were released, they are now Bentley's but still need periodic maintenance.
Now its Native Instruments turn to deliver the goods on what users and potential users want. Why so much comparison to MPC? Are you kidding? Because it is their version of an MPC. If NI desires so, they can add fully incorporate MIDI interfaces. They just took baby steps with OS 1.5 in this regard. And there are users in the NI Forums that would like to see full MIDI implementation.
emptysea wrote:Askia Shaheed wrote:Step. You must look at the computer monitor when using this mode since the LCD doesn't show any detailed information. When you start increasing the number of steps (by adjusting the grid) it is impossible to tell what you are actually doing looking at the hardware unlike an MPC or MV.
1. Bzzzt... wrong.
When you increase the number of steps, the pads reflect the changes in grid resolution. The LCD displays show you where you are in the steps and allow you to navigate.
Askia Shaheed wrote:An example where you must look at the hardware because the monitor doesn't show anything...is destructive sample editing. The computer monitor (software) doesn't show you what editing function you are about to use. You must look at the hardware for this information.
2. Wrong again.
There are arrows for buttons 7 and 8 which is how you choose which editing function to use.
Stop trying to mislead people about Maschine. I know you want an all-out spec war between Maschine and MPC but the truth is that Maschine is not just a MPC replacement. It's much more than that. And for some people it will never replace a MPC, and vice versa. They're different tools for different needs.
There's only a few things that you ever need to touch the mouse or keyboard while using Maschine, usually tasks that are better done with a mouse or keyboard, like importing samples into library and naming a project when saving. But no matter how much you try to nitpick, the fact is that most of the time you're using Maschine, you can just use the controller by itself.
I stand by both statements.
1. When increasing the grid resolution, the software/computer monitor is the way to go because you get to see the actual grid (like an MPC/MV). With the hardware..you are looking at a bunch of numbers/letters and the pads. This is nowhere close to being as useful as an actual grid. Maschine's hardware is useless in this regard unless you are doing a bunch of 4 bar loops. So unless NI adds an actual grid to the hardwares LCD (again, like an MPC/MV)...the software is the best choice.
2. Are you joking? Re-read my statement and then your response. I clearly indicated that you have to look at the hardware to see what editing function you are about to use (via Arrow buttons 7 and
. The software/computer monitor doesn't show the destructive editing options. Fact.
So in conclusion, Grid edit is useless from the hardware and destructive sample editing is useless from the software/computer monitor. These are both key features of Maschine and MPCs. To improve Maschine, the hardware should mimic the software 100%. NI can take a lesson from the way Roland designed the MV and Fantom G.
No need to get worked up. I am an actual Maschine and MPC user. I wrote thousands of threads about how to improve an MPC like so many others here. I am just doing the same for Maschine. NI is not above constructive feedback...and they even ask for it.
Respectfully,
AJ
