MPC2000 and MPC2000XL LCD Screens

omarphi215 wrote:Yes jumbled words is a very small price for a new clear screen, however the beat counter is an issue for me. If I'm listening to a track and realize that somethin is wrong with it, I can't determine where the mistake may be in time. What if I need to step edit some really syncopated tracks? I mean again I am very happy to have a new screen but this issue really bothers me because I use the countrerand in some cases rely on the counter. Is it just me?

it does suck and thats a problem that is the kind of thing a hardcore user would notice before an engineer - no disrespect at all intended - i hope my point makes sense that often the design overlooks something that, in use, is not talked about a lot cause it's so expected or automatic.

having said that, it is a small price to pay - would you rather have an mpc that shows the time delayed a bit to where you need to maybe 'learn' the delay (totally doable btw), or would you rather have a dead mpc with no screen?

plus it just means there is room for improvement - i wonder if the firmware in these screens is flashable at all?
bust out the assembler!

i would suggest you just use your mpc a lot here and try to pick up on how the delay affects the counter - you will probably be able to figure it out good enough where it becomes automatic - you see 3 and you think 4.

I feel you. That's why I'm making sure that I am clear when I say all in all I am happy. I do feel that envision and others appreciate what I notice to be "wrong" with the screens. Keep in mind I have not worked on a project with the new screen yet so I am speaking on a "what I first notice" tip. I'm sure when I sync a track into logic, it wills tech up perfectly. And I have been working with a busted screen for a while so I know I can get over the minor glitches, but they are glitches none the less on a brand new product.
The price is right, the product is much needed so I still give props to those guys for even makin the screen. I'm just giving my honest feedback and hope that the second batch of screens will be corrected if at all possible.
Thanks again envision and mpc stuff!

**EDIT**

maybe turn the tempo way down while watching over the time location of an event etc.. ?

I don't know whether or not I fully understand the issue with the new screens. I'd like to see the video of exact symptom.
It doesn't sound like a very serious issue though (to me, at least), but I could be wrong. For the counter issue, it cannot be read the value of tick in real time with the original LCD screens anyway. Doesn't entering "open window" (orange button, I forgot how it is called) "flash" the screen, therefore you can read information on LCD?

JVC wrote:I don't know whether or not I fully understand the issue with the new screens.

two issues:
1) easiest to explain - slight delay between what happens in the machine and when the screen updates (this includes button presses and the counter)

2) occasionally parts of the screen get 'jumbled' - simply updating the screen (with a cursor press for example) 'refreshes' the screen to normal.

at least that what i think / have read

It's not a major deal, more irritating at the moment as I am sure I will get used to it. I do often read the counter as I am listening to a track to ensure things are on the right beat. This is how I noticed the issue in the first place. Many may not consider it an issue but I think it's worth mentioning. I'm just glad that there is some sort of explanation.

**EDIT**

OK, thank you for the detailed info. I see that it can be annoyance, but probably it won't bother me much (a few lines sure will!)

The counter actually stood out to me...but it's probably less than half a second off.

tapedeck wrote:

omarphi215 wrote:Yes jumbled words is a very small price for a new clear screen, however the beat counter is an issue for me. If I'm listening to a track and realize that somethin is wrong with it, I can't determine where the mistake may be in time. What if I need to step edit some really syncopated tracks? I mean again I am very happy to have a new screen but this issue really bothers me because I use the countrerand in some cases rely on the counter. Is it just me?

it does suck and thats a problem that is the kind of thing a hardcore user would notice before an engineer - no disrespect at all intended - i hope my point makes sense that often the design overlooks something that, in use, is not talked about a lot cause it's so expected or automatic.

having said that, it is a small price to pay - would you rather have an mpc that shows the time delayed a bit to where you need to maybe 'learn' the delay (totally doable btw), or would you rather have a dead mpc with no screen?

plus it just means there is room for improvement - i wonder if the firmware in these screens is flashable at all?
bust out the assembler!

i would suggest you just use your mpc a lot here and try to pick up on how the delay affects the counter - you will probably be able to figure it out good enough where it becomes automatic - you see 3 and you think 4.

Well, I noticed it right away as a musician. If we "fix" this in code, we "break" something else. And that "breaking" is stability. The fix (adding a co-processor and shared RAM) adds $130 to each screen in parts and engineering design time. Most people won't pay that kind of money for a display, I can guarantee that. We made 200 screens for a first run. Imagine the kind of costs Akai would have to endure if they made "only 200" MPC's! The facts are that Akai made tens of thousands of them and the screens still ended up costing over $200 as spare parts. Please consider this niche aspect of the new screen.

The 2000 and XL are different when it comes to how the display handles data. In order to make them compatible, we had to spread a couple features between them and this slows certain things down. Since we are doing roughly 30 times the processing that the original screen did, we are hustling just to make it to the next millisecond. I understand that the end results should seem better, but rest assured that we have optimized every bit of the code to run as smoothly as possible and insuring that the overall display will last much longer than the original.

envisionelec wrote:

tapedeck wrote:

omarphi215 wrote:Yes jumbled words is a very small price for a new clear screen, however the beat counter is an issue for me. If I'm listening to a track and realize that somethin is wrong with it, I can't determine where the mistake may be in time. What if I need to step edit some really syncopated tracks? I mean again I am very happy to have a new screen but this issue really bothers me because I use the countrerand in some cases rely on the counter. Is it just me?

it does suck and thats a problem that is the kind of thing a hardcore user would notice before an engineer - no disrespect at all intended - i hope my point makes sense that often the design overlooks something that, in use, is not talked about a lot cause it's so expected or automatic.

having said that, it is a small price to pay - would you rather have an mpc that shows the time delayed a bit to where you need to maybe 'learn' the delay (totally doable btw), or would you rather have a dead mpc with no screen?

plus it just means there is room for improvement - i wonder if the firmware in these screens is flashable at all?
bust out the assembler!

i would suggest you just use your mpc a lot here and try to pick up on how the delay affects the counter - you will probably be able to figure it out good enough where it becomes automatic - you see 3 and you think 4.

Well, I noticed it right away as a musician. If we "fix" this in code, we "break" something else. And that "breaking" is stability. The fix (adding a co-processor and shared RAM) adds $130 to each screen in parts and engineering design time. Most people won't pay that kind of money for a display, I can guarantee that. We made 200 screens for a first run. Imagine the kind of costs Akai would have to endure if they made "only 200" MPC's! The facts are that Akai made tens of thousands of them and the screens still ended up costing over $200 as spare parts. Please consider this niche aspect of the new screen.

The 2000 and XL are different when it comes to how the display handles data. In order to make them compatible, we had to spread a couple features between them and this slows certain things down. Since we are doing roughly 30 times the processing that the original screen did, we are hustling just to make it to the next millisecond. I understand that the end results should seem better, but rest assured that we have optimized every bit of the code to run as smoothly as possible and insuring that the overall display will last much longer than the original.

Thanks for the explanation. As mentioned before I am still very happy with the screen and y'all should be very proud of your work. I assume that you appreciate any feedback on the product. It is clear that you have checked everything on these screens because you have an answer or explanation for every comment. That is a great thing!!!

omarphi215 wrote:Thanks for the explanation. As mentioned before I am still very happy with the screen and y'all should be very proud of your work. I assume that you appreciate any feedback on the product. It is clear that you have checked everything on these screens because you have an answer or explanation for every comment. That is a great thing!!!

We absolutely appreciate comments and criticism of all sorts. It helps us understand your needs better.

**EDIT**

ntalec wrote:Any chance this makes a difference between what you see on the two units or are they pretty much the same glitch-wise?

They're the same.