The MPC-V: A Virtual Akai MPC

@Metatron72
I understand all that. But I don't personally get into questioning anyone's ability to do their job or create a product especially if I can't do the job myself. Busineses stay in business when they make a profit. If a product is not profitable, it would be silly to put resources into it.

Regarding the MPC 4000 and 5000, I don't agree that the MPC 5000 needed to surpass the MPC 4000 in every spec. Off the top of my head, the MPC 5000 actually has more useful tools than the MPC 4000. Of course the term "useful" is debatable. I only agree that if a full fledge sampler is what people in fact wanted (I'm not convinced either way), I would suggest that it be as or more powerful than the MPC 4000 because of these geek forums will point out the flaws. As for the rest of the MPC 5K 2.0, I believe the feature set was ambitious. It added functions never before seen in an MPC before many of the suggestions came directly from this forum. I only hoped that it would receive more OS updates.

Trying to stay on topic.....I am interested in what you believe a modern MPC should have. If you already made it clear, I will go back and re-read. These types of threads/dialogue are among my most favorite....

Askia Shaheed wrote:@Metatron72
I understand all that. But I don't personally get into questioning anyone's ability to do their job or create a product especially if I can't do the job myself. Busineses stay in business when they make a profit. If a product is not profitable, it would be silly to put resources into it.

Regarding the MPC 4000 and 5000, I don't agree that the MPC 5000 needed to surpass the MPC 4000 in every spec. Off the top of my head, the MPC 5000 actually has more useful tools than the MPC 4000. Of course the term "useful" is debatable. I only agree that if a full fledge sampler is what people in fact wanted (I'm not convinced either way), I would suggest that it be as or more powerful than the MPC 4000 because of these geek forums will point out the flaws. As for the rest of the MPC 5K 2.0, I believe the feature set was ambitious. It added functions never before seen in an MPC before many of the suggestions came directly from this forum. I only hoped that it would receive more OS updates.

Trying to stay on topic.....I am interested in what you believe a modern MPC should have. If you already made it clear, I will go back and re-read. These types of threads/dialogue are among my most favorite....

I haven't really mentioned anything specific in this thread, mostly how I just find some of Akai's decisions odd. You make a strong point about the market maybe not wanting a full keygroup sampler like the 4000. I mainly was disappointed it couldn't go up to 24/96. I know 16/44/48 usually suffices, but I have a lot of higher sample rate sounds on my HD's, so not having to do conversions is always good. 512MB should have been the minimum, and 1GB wouldn't have been implausible. I also agree that 2 OS revisions in nearly 4 years isn't enough.

I guess I just would want the general things mentioned in this thread, even if they were limited. An easy way to use PGM and SEQ files in a DAW, maybe a modern take on Aksys that would be more like Virus TI VST integration. Honestly I'd buy another MPC even without any of this. I'm trying to wrap my mind around how they make a new MPC look like a good value at $2000 to someone who isn't already a gear hound or MPC collector, and I keep coming back to the type of concepts in this thread.

I probably would have got a 5000, but I took a wait and see attitude on the OS updates. In the end it just wasn't necessary, as I already had multiple MPC's and VST's I feel sound as good as the Fusion synth engine in the 5000.

So with me and Akai, it's more I'm scratching my head sometimes as opposed to just hating on them. Yeah. I enjoy these kinda threads too. I've lurked here since about '07, so I've read a lot of your posts. Always thorough and informative, so thanks for always reporting the nitty gritty.

Metatron72 wrote:

Askia Shaheed wrote:@Metatron72
I understand all that. But I don't personally get into questioning anyone's ability to do their job or create a product especially if I can't do the job myself. Busineses stay in business when they make a profit. If a product is not profitable, it would be silly to put resources into it.

Regarding the MPC 4000 and 5000, I don't agree that the MPC 5000 needed to surpass the MPC 4000 in every spec. Off the top of my head, the MPC 5000 actually has more useful tools than the MPC 4000. Of course the term "useful" is debatable. I only agree that if a full fledge sampler is what people in fact wanted (I'm not convinced either way), I would suggest that it be as or more powerful than the MPC 4000 because of these geek forums will point out the flaws. As for the rest of the MPC 5K 2.0, I believe the feature set was ambitious. It added functions never before seen in an MPC before many of the suggestions came directly from this forum. I only hoped that it would receive more OS updates.

Trying to stay on topic.....I am interested in what you believe a modern MPC should have. If you already made it clear, I will go back and re-read. These types of threads/dialogue are among my most favorite....

I haven't really mentioned anything specific in this thread, mostly how I just find some of Akai's decisions odd. You make a strong point about the market maybe not wanting a full keygroup sampler like the 4000. I mainly was disappointed it couldn't go up to 24/96. I know 16/44/48 usually suffices, but I have a lot of higher sample rate sounds on my HD's, so not having to do conversions is always good. 512MB should have been the minimum, and 1GB wouldn't have been implausible. I also agree that 2 OS revisions in nearly 4 years isn't enough.

I guess I just would want the general things mentioned in this thread, even if they were limited. An easy way to use PGM and SEQ files in a DAW, maybe a modern take on Aksys that would be more like Virus TI VST integration. Honestly I'd buy another MPC even without any of this. I'm trying to wrap my mind around how they make a new MPC look like a good value at $2000 to someone who isn't already a gear hound or MPC collector, and I keep coming back to the type of concepts in this thread.

I probably would have got a 5000, but I took a wait and see attitude on the OS updates. In the end it just wasn't necessary, as I already had multiple MPC's and VST's I feel sound as good as the Fusion synth engine in the 5000.

So with me and Akai, it's more I'm scratching my head sometimes as opposed to just hating on them. Yeah. I enjoy these kinda threads too. I've lurked here since about '07, so I've read a lot of your posts. Always thorough and informative, so thanks for always reporting the nitty gritty.

I understand. But on the flip side...Other than the MPC 4000 and the Z series samplers...what other hardware samplers are 24 bit/96 khz? Not many. Besides...who wants to load 512 MB (or even 1 GB) of samples into a hardware sampler when you can just MIDI your MPC up to a software sampler with minimal load type...and have 30 gigs plus of sounds at your finger tips? The load time is terrible even in today's workstations (See Fantom X and Motif XF). I always advocate keeping your samples in your PC/Mac and let your MPC sequence them over MIDI. This is what MPCs were first designed to do.

You say Akai's decision making was odd...but the truth is, it is probably odd to keep creating MPCs as no other company are making these types of products. Even the MV-8000/8800 don't have a sampler as powerful as the MPC 4000. Roland was the only other company making these types of products and now have discontinued their line. Companies only discontinue products when they are no longer profitable. Its a niche market. I can't blame a company for tyring to stay in business.

Maschine has sparlked alot of interest. I am curious to see how long they will support this product and what they have planned next....I also want to see Motu continue development of BPM. Its too bad they don't have a dedicated control surface. I would like to see Akai develop an MPD specifically designed for that product.

when i think about the things i want in a new mpc (virtual or straight up new model) I look at what jjos has done. At bare minimum i think it needs to have most of what jjos 2xl is. I dont think it has to be done the same way, just include some of the ideas, ways of doing things jjos has done.

Askia Shaheed wrote:Maschine has sparlked alot of interest. I am curious to see how long they will support this product and what they have planned next....I also want to see Motu continue development of BPM. Its too bad they don't have a dedicated control surface. I would like to see Akai develop an MPD specifically designed for that product.

Hmm..thats not a bad idea about bpm. That could work for akai. Although im not up on bpm and how far it has progressed...

Askia, that's a good call on continued production of MPC's being a head scratcher as well. That kind of ties into where my thinking is at. It just seems like they would have been the ones to bring out a concept like Maschine, because they had to have known that PC/Macs were becoming the bulk of people's studios. I guess they choose the MPD/APC route for their presence in that space, instead of the hybrid concepts we're discussing. I'm sure you right about the MPC line being generally profitable for them through all this, which certainly would be a factor in their plans. I wonder if that hasn't slowed down somewhat lately, the 2500 discontinuation, no new 1000's being manufactured and I'd have to guess the 5000's sales didn't meet their expectations.

You're right, the 4000/Z series were unique in their spec, and the broader market probably doesn't care if the spec is that high. Good point on the sounds in the PC/DAW, MPC as the MIDI trigger. I don't have a 60/3000 where the sound character is more discernible, a 1000/2500 sound just like a $300 audio interface anyway. I have had some sounds sound better to me in the 4000 than in the PC, but that's rare I feel that way. (Digital Sound Factory's E-MU and Ensoniq sets are the ones where I noticed a difference)

From what I infer indirectly I think Maschine has sold very well. Seeing a lot of new users at Saintjoe/Knock Squared's tutorial site on a monthly basis is probably a good indicator they're selling steadily. NI also wasn't gonna do VST until around v.2, but got so bum rushed with requests, they did it at v.1.6. So it looks like they're in it for the long haul.

I have BPM and there's a lot I like about it. Number one issue with it, is that you can't go off the grid. You are forced to work with some measure of quantize on. I was in shock over this when I first got it, that's a massive oversight. They did the 1.5 update which improved the MIDI mapping tenfold, and the UVI sounds are fantastic, and I like it's filters much more than Maschine. I use it with an MPD32 with the Fat Pads, so yeah, an Akai surface and BPM are a good fit. The MPD32 maxes out at 72 MIDI CC assignments, so unfortunately I can't map everything. MOTU should have made a deal to put out SSP's diy BPM controller.

this has me wondering a question from all of you. If akai did make a virtual mpc. What would the software look like? I mean, we all say we like the workflow and hands on feel of the mpc. but once you turn it into software, do you loose that? change it?

once you gain the advantage of software on a computer and ability to create enhanced GUI, and less limited options, how do you handle it?

Would it look like mashine or bpm with that style of GUI? or would it be more barebones, stripped down, more like our mpc screen we are use to? or would it be more like a DAW where you add tracks, etc.?

here are some of my thoughts:

The mpc is a very powerful creative 'box' and Part of that is due to its limited abilities and focus on accomplishing very specific things. It isn't a DAW or one size fits all, and the things it does, it does them well in a simple manner with simple menus and screens. Part of the 'essence' of the mpc is its simplicity and straight forwardness. You have decicate knobs and buttons, and 3 main screens (trim, pgm, main). Its text based interface is very different from a lot of vsts, maschine, or daws.

At the same time, its strength is its weakness. Because it is a 'box', as soon as its released, its hardware soon gets out of date. OS wise users want "more". Alot of the 'more' wasn't anticipated and designed for hardware wise or interface wise.........for example, jjos has squeezed alot out of the os, but there are still somethings he just cant accomplish because of hardware limitations and because of limited space and size, its dangerous to just keep adding features without looosing others or cramming too much in there. There is only so much you can do with the limited screen, knobs, etc. without turning it into something its not intended to be. ya feel what im saying? ok, so stay with me here. Look at maschine. From what I observed, it suffers the similar problem that the mpc seems to have. Even though it has alot more room software wise, it was design a specific way to match up with the hardware, but after it was realeased, alot of users ended up wanting more feautures, some of which, it was not originally designed to handle. As a result, somethings are crammed into submenus, the hardware can't handle and have dedicated knobs for everything, etc.

so there is sort of this problematic paradigm. you have something very boxed in and hands on and thats where it shines, and then you have software which can grow and not be boxed in. how do you handle it? how do you handle it while maintaining the mpc essence, tight integration with a controller, and power of software/daw abilities?

Askia Shaheed wrote:
I understand. But on the flip side...Other than the MPC 4000 and the Z series samplers...what other hardware samplers are 24 bit/96 khz? Not many. Besides...who wants to load 512 MB (or even 1 GB) of samples into a hardware sampler when you can just MIDI your MPC up to a software sampler with minimal load type

This is one of the reasons I sold my Mpc 2500. IMO It's better to have everything in the box besides that's were it's going to end up anyway. No cables to deal with, no transferring files back and forth, and no batch converting for off sample rates.


Also that on that list someone mentioned that they would want to see 960 ppq resolution...I could have sworn reading through Maschine manual that it was 960. I'll have to look into that.

Maschine's sequencer is definitely 960 PPQN.

Besides nondestructive-chopping what specific JJ OS feature is a must have? I know exactly what I want in an MPC. But very little what I desire is in the JJ OS or any other product on the market...at least not in one product.

Askia Shaheed wrote:Besides nondestructive-chopping what specific JJ OS feature is a must have? I know exactly what I want in an MPC. But very little what I desire is in the JJ OS or any other product on the market...at least not in one product.

Non destructive chopping is already possible...just have to chop manually.

Upright wrote:

Askia Shaheed wrote:Besides nondestructive-chopping what specific JJ OS feature is a must have? I know exactly what I want in an MPC. But very little what I desire is in the JJ OS or any other product on the market...at least not in one product.

Non destructive chopping is already possible...just have to chop manually.

Yeah....most of us know this already.

But the way JJ OS does it takes you make to the ASR...where one sample is laid out across all the keys and doesn't take up any extra memory. Each key has its own start/end or loop points. And in this way, we have nondestructive chop. JJ takes it to another level where the sample is chopped up and assigned to multiple pads..then you can freely edit the start/end points of each sliced region without impacting adjacent regions...meanwhile not using any extra memory.

But of course you know this. Korg Workstations do something very similar. You copy and paste from one key to multiple keys which doesn't take up extra memory. But the editiing process afterwards isn't as straight forward.

Some great ideas in this thread.

Makes we wanna go into the lab and create a frankenstein prototype of my ideal MPC hybrid.

You know like taking the guts of an MPC1000 and an MPD32, throwing it into a custom integrated case with a 10 inch touchscreen and a Mac mini running Logic and Reaper, somewhere along the lines of Open labs D-Beat, but with a genuine MPC inside.

Or using the guts of the MPC1000 as the USB controller for a virtual MPC hybrid, that could kill Maschine in an instant. The best of both worlds...

Askia Shaheed wrote:

Upright wrote:

Askia Shaheed wrote:Besides nondestructive-chopping what specific JJ OS feature is a must have? I know exactly what I want in an MPC. But very little what I desire is in the JJ OS or any other product on the market...at least not in one product.

Non destructive chopping is already possible...just have to chop manually.

Yeah....most of us know this already.

But the way JJ OS does it takes you make to the ASR...where one sample is laid out across all the keys and doesn't take up any extra memory. Each key has its own start/end or loop points. And in this way, we have nondestructive chop. JJ takes it to another level where the sample is chopped up and assigned to multiple pads..then you can freely edit the start/end points of each sliced region without impacting adjacent regions...meanwhile not using any extra memory.

But of course you know this. Korg Workstations do something very similar. You copy and paste from one key to multiple keys which doesn't take up extra memory. But the editiing process afterwards isn't as straight forward.

Yeah Maschines start and end point editing process is extremely straightforward. Also I don't see RAM being as much of an issue on the pc. It's definitely an issue in mpcs and work station devices where ram is limited.

Askia Shaheed wrote:. Besides...who wants to load 512 MB (or even 1 GB) of samples into a hardware sampler when you can just MIDI your MPC up to a software sampler with minimal load type...and have 30 gigs plus of sounds at your finger tips? The load time is terrible even in today's workstations (See Fantom X and Motif XF).

That's one of the things that has me interested in this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRAM


By the time that becomes the norm, large SSD's will become inexpensive and will be used entirely for storage on a device like a hardware workstation. The booting sequence would simply be the time needed to reach over and flip the power switch... and the last state the machine was in before shutting down (again as fast as flipping the switch) would be what you see.

We are a while away from that though... but since we're talking about theoretical features.

I mean sure, these types of musical equipment will spec wise be inferior to PCs of the same era.. but that doesn't mean they need to be slow or underpowered. We are getting faster and faster technology but the file types we use have been the same for 20 years. That means it should only get easier and better, right?