Vintage mode

im thinking this shit here could make the ren a classic, cos the way they talking about the models sounds like they have really understood why the sounds of the mpc 60 and 3000 have that tone.

while the maschine emulations was cool i see them as more gimmicky, whereas the implementation here on the ren seem like the deluxe shit

i thought they was only gonna do other akai samplers so was expecting them to announance the s950 emulation which should be crazy but the sp1200 hardware emulation will also be first hard ware emulation.

im thinking if this is done right this could lead to a new trend in the industry.

as we have seen man software emulation of analogue gear and for example propellerhead did the ssl emulation of the signal processing.

but this could spark a wave of manufacturers putting emulations on they audio interfaces.

like imagine buying an audio interface where the inputs and output had a neve board emulation.

anyway would love to hear ur thoughts and ideas on how this shit works like i envisage doing a beat where my drums are samples in mpc60 mode then my main sample might be sampled in s950 so it will give that golden age premo type vibe.

but seems like the possibilities are deep.

in one of the namm 2012 videos (the one from sinicstate.com) the wakai dude says that the vintage modes are no emulations but the "real deal".

i doubt it! i doubt they have put in the original converters found in the 60/3000.

those converters aren´t available anymore...

jpeg wrote:while the maschine emulations was cool i see them as more gimmicky, whereas the implementation here on the ren seem like the deluxe shit

the maschine emulations are actually very complex mathematical models which recreate the circuits of the sp1200 as a digital model....it's a lot more than a simple filter of fx chain.

my guess would be the vintage mode on the ren is a similar thing (maybe the rep could drop some knowledge so some of us can get our nerdon?).

gimmicky or not, they are likely the same sort of process.

I'd like to know more too.

Emulations are based on measuring selected variables in the hardware aren't they? Something like that. Which are then re-created in a digital environment.

Dan, can you confirm if this is how Akai have done it? I'd be really interested to know the detail your tech heads have gone into for this process.

Tape, I wonder though if they could be an FX chain? Bit-reduction and some downsampling, little hint of ring modulator?

scoobylol wrote:Emulations are based on measuring selected variables in the hardware aren't they? Something like that. Which are then re-created in a digital environment.

yea it works like this but at the circuit level it gets really really crazy.
instead of modelling / emulating the 'device' like, say, an impulse response does, you actually recreate the circuit (resistors, caps, etc) digitally, and so the effects of the device sort of 'fall out' of that.

maybe im oversimplifying / describing it wrong but that is how i understand it, ive done a little work like this myself but mainly watched my friends do it cause the math involved can really put you off.

scoobylol wrote:Tape, I wonder though if they could be an FX chain? Bit-reduction and some downsampling, little hint of ring modulator?

since maschine put such amazing work into their vintage mode, i hope akai wouldn't be simply adding fx chains on the ins and outs. im assuming theirs is the same technology but its true i dont know like i do about maschine.

edit: for those wanting to tickle their nerd tingle, here is what is going on in maschine's vintage mode (cannot confirm akai yet):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic ... simulation

Yes, this got my curiosity up too ?

When I first heard of vintage mode, I thought that it would change the visual of the screen to what ever model machine you picked. Like if they had a 2kxl mode the screen would like the screen on the 2kxl. I hope that happens as well as the change in sound. Is this what happpens with vintage mode does the screen change as well as the sound? If not I think I just found my first feature request.

while the maschine emulations was cool i see them as more gimmicky, whereas the implementation here on the ren seem like the deluxe ****

I'm not sure how that can accurately based on anything that's actually on the table. Figure the following:

* Numark is no more connected with the original Akai MPCs than NI except by name.

* It's all software. To accurately reproduce any machine with 100% accuracy you would have to replicate not only the circuitry but the original sample engine. That said the NI emulations can be as good, better , or worse than what Akai implements.

* Numark's software doesn't actually work so despite the reps claims nobody has clue of what these emulation from Akai will sound like or if they are just dsp gimmicks. It's all talk until someone gets their hands on it.

In short is that too much is in play to make an assessment on software that's not even at stage where it can be demoed successfully.

I don't think there is a way to truly emulate hardware without the actual hardware components. That being said, the only true emulation the Ren will have will be of the 3000 since it uses actual parts from a 3000. Anything else will be software based emulation. Makes no sense if anything other than that is being suggested. Either way, I don't give a shit if it sounds like legacy gear. I just want it to sound good! All that shit get's thrown out the window anyway once your track is in MP3!

the only true emulation the Ren will have will be of the 3000 since it uses actual parts from a 3000.

The guy said "from the jack to the ADs". That's not saying much but it also limits any authentic 3000 emulation to what you actually sample through the inputs. The sounds imported as wavs directly into the software wouldn't be able to benefit from an analog signal path.

I agree if it sounds decent who cares but Akai should stop flinging stuff around to build enthusiasm.

boy,some of y'all dude's are nit pcking,as if somebody really gonna notice if that track you just made sounds like a 3000/60 just be happy we got a 21st century MPC. If you got skills you can still make a track sound grimmey or dirty,my tracks used to come with dirt and grimme due to bad equipment vintage plug ins are made all the time so it shouldn't be that big a deal,to remake that old circuitry using digital emulation,where in 2012,the last year on earth

From Roger Linn's web site...

The MPC3000's sampling method is 44.1 khz, 16 bit linear (CD quality). The MPC60's sampling method is 40 khz, 12 bit non-linear (quieter than 12 bit linear).

So, as I've been telling people for a couple of decades, the 3000 will sound the same as anything today with the same specs. That's practically anything.

Remember, 44 is double the rate of human hearing. Take a look at specs for headphones, they're usually 20hz to 19khz. Some actually hit 22khz if you want to pay for that quality. From a scientist named Nyquist, he says in order to hear good quality for digital playback, you must double the rate. Therefore, 44000. the extra 100 was added for extra headroom. Kurzweil often sampled at 48 because of the movie industry, and an attempt to get people wanting to "match" that quality. Do any of you, remember the Super Audio-CD that Sony was trying to sell? It was at 96khz, double of 48. That really did catch the low-end TR808 kicks with long decay great, but expensive as hell.

All of this really took a long time to get the hardware end of it to work correctly. Much of this takes software to run. Software takes longer to perfect because of its very nature of flexibility within its core ability to be created to work on anything. This, of course, take lots or research, lots of review, and a "endless" supply of money to do so. Yet, money is not the problem, being patient to do the needed research while a money hungry CEO wants sales. This is a problem that we hardware, software, and embedded systems engineers face daily no matter what industry we're working for. It's too bad, too. Yet, Hip-Hip seems to have taken this bad step.

Many emcees today are hopeless, thinking that record sales make them the dopest.

Mad Cherokee

rookie wrote:boy,some of y'all dude's are nit pcking,as if somebody really gonna notice if that track you just made sounds like a 3000/60 just be happy we got a 21st century MPC. If you got skills you can still make a track sound grimmey or dirty,my tracks used to come with dirt and grimme due to bad equipment vintage plug ins are made all the time so it shouldn't be that big a deal,to remake that old circuitry using digital emulation,where in 2012,the last year on earth

uve missed the point it aint about no one knowing shit its about when i make a track using a good vintage mode of the 60 for instance the sample with have a smoother warmer sounds with some additonal harmonics on the bass and highs.

so while no one might say that tracks was made on the 60 a layman will feel the difference.

like one time i took my sp505 to another cats house who had an mpc60 he sampled a loop outta my sp505 into the 60 and it was liek the elephant in the room everyone looked at each other and one next dude was like it sounds better in the 60.

madcherokee wrote:From Roger Linn's web site...

The MPC3000's sampling method is 44.1 khz, 16 bit linear (CD quality). The MPC60's sampling method is 40 khz, 12 bit non-linear (quieter than 12 bit linear).

So, as I've been telling people for a couple of decades, the 3000 will sound the same as anything today with the same specs. That's practically anything.

I hear you, but it's more than just bit and sample rate that determine the "sound" of a machine. There's also a/d converters to factor in, which can be of varying quality among different pieces of gear! It's like a stock Digi 003 vs a Black Lion modified 003. Sure the two have the same native bit and sample rates for which they can record, but the difference in converters between the two is going to make them sound different, even when recording at the same sample rate.

madcherokee wrote:Remember, 44 is double the rate of human hearing. Take a look at specs for headphones, they're usually 20hz to 19khz. Some actually hit 22khz if you want to pay for that quality. From a scientist named Nyquist, he says in order to hear good quality for digital playback, you must double the rate. Therefore, 44000.

this is correct. the nyquist theorem states that the highest frequency you can capture digitally is half the sampling rate (imagine a square wave - it take at least two samples to represent it - one for the upper swing and one for the lower - therefore sampling rate divided by 2 is the highest freq you can represent).

madcherokee wrote: the extra 100 was added for extra headroom. Kurzweil often sampled at 48 because of the movie industry, and an attempt to get people wanting to "match" that quality. Do any of you, remember the Super Audio-CD that Sony was trying to sell? It was at 96khz, double of 48. That really did catch the low-end TR808 kicks with long decay great, but expensive as hell.

i think you might be blurring the lines between bits and sample rate - headroom is exclusively in regards to bits (volume) and 100 extra samples at ~44k is really not a lot - im not sure why they chose 44.1k i imagine it could be any number of things.
SACD was also 24bit and that really does make a huge difference with long-decay sounds.

appreciate the post i am with you on it.