Computer Power vs. MPC hardware Power?

Every smartphone on the market is several times more powerful than the cpu in any MPC. There is no comparison to a desktop processor or even modest laptop.

MPC CPU vs. Desktop CPU = Howitzer vs. BB gun

Retrofreak wrote:
My i7 980x could probably put a man on the moon, yet it cant sequence as tight as a humble Z80 chip, let alone an Atari ST lol

i wonder why that is though.. I mean in the past I get it .. but why haven't they gotten that right yet if that is the case? very odd.. I mean, you always hear people saying the mpc sequencer is way tighter than DAW sequencers... is this still true these days?

If you wanna send an email, update your facebook, or watch Illuminati rappers music videos, I guess I would choose the MacBook...
I agree

On the other hand, if you wanna lock yourself in the studio with a stack of records, a microphone and a turntable and come up with something that sounds uniquely like you, thats got your funky, soulfull DNA all over it, then the MPC wins...
I disagree

Computers are not making better music...

I disagree, sloppy, good and outstanding music can be made on both independent of each other.

They help make recording ..........less individual sounding, but no, not better..
I'm gonna disagree with all of that.

mr_debauch wrote:

Retrofreak wrote:
My i7 980x could probably put a man on the moon, yet it cant sequence as tight as a humble Z80 chip, let alone an Atari ST lol

i wonder why that is though.. I mean in the past I get it .. but why haven't they gotten that right yet if that is the case? very odd.. I mean, you always hear people saying the mpc sequencer is way tighter than DAW sequencers... is this still true these days?

yes it is still true. it's because running a tight midi sequence happens after all the other bullshit a computer has to do - it's like an 'extra' thing the computer can do - just another function, like all other functions. and so the system gets to decide what is most important and guess what, tight midi is not one of them.

vs a designed-for-midi device where accurate midi is the main function, and it doesn't have to worry about anything else.

somebody around here recently gave a really good description involving interrupts, maybe search for that.

tapedeck wrote:

mr_debauch wrote:

Retrofreak wrote:
My i7 980x could probably put a man on the moon, yet it cant sequence as tight as a humble Z80 chip, let alone an Atari ST lol

i wonder why that is though.. I mean in the past I get it .. but why haven't they gotten that right yet if that is the case? very odd.. I mean, you always hear people saying the mpc sequencer is way tighter than DAW sequencers... is this still true these days?

yes it is still true. it's because running a tight midi sequence happens after all the other bullshit a computer has to do - it's like an 'extra' thing the computer can do - just another function, like all other functions. and so the system gets to decide what is most important and guess what, tight midi is not one of them.

vs a designed-for-midi device where accurate midi is the main function, and it doesn't have to worry about anything else.

somebody around here recently gave a really good description involving interrupts, maybe search for that.

ahh so you are talking about processes causing jitter in the sequencer? I am surprised we dont have something to compensate for this.. I mean, isn't there a way for an application to reserve a certain amount of untapped system resource or something? I mean besides the usual "priority | real time"..

I hear that linux has some real time low latency kernels which I believe ubuntu studio was using at some point... I was thinking about trying to install mixx on my installation of that to see if I can get some decent serato performance however those assholes over at motu dont seem interested in doing anything for linux what so ever.

Computer Power vs. MPC hardware Power?
That's not a fair comparison.

One was designed to many things.
One was designed specifically for a purpose.

You can't come up with a more category related comparison?

Comparing Athlon to Pentium is cool.

Retrofreak wrote:let alone an Atari ST lol

The ST was/is legendary for its solid timing. When I bought mine (years after they'd stopped making them) I got it off a woman who had bought it for her daughter and she'd used it once and then stored it away in the loft. It was pristine.

Coz wrote:

Retrofreak wrote:let alone an Atari ST lol

The ST was/is legendary for its solid timing. When I bought mine (years after they'd stopped making them) I got it off a woman who had bought it for her daughter and she'd used it once and then stored it away in the loft. It was pristine.

yea those things are sick - the midi ports were STANDARD on them - again, they were designed for midi.

mpc cpu vs pc cpu is not a stupid comparison, just a drastic one.

tapedeck wrote:again, they were designed for midi.

Exactly.

tapedeck wrote:

mr_debauch wrote:

Retrofreak wrote:
My i7 980x could probably put a man on the moon, yet it cant sequence as tight as a humble Z80 chip, let alone an Atari ST lol

i wonder why that is though.. I mean in the past I get it .. but why haven't they gotten that right yet if that is the case? very odd.. I mean, you always hear people saying the mpc sequencer is way tighter than DAW sequencers... is this still true these days?

yes it is still true. it's because running a tight midi sequence happens after all the other bullshit a computer has to do - it's like an 'extra' thing the computer can do - just another function, like all other functions. and so the system gets to decide what is most important and guess what, tight midi is not one of them.

I don't notice it. I've used MPC's for 15 years. Used Maschine and Reason for the past year and do not notice any difference in "tightness" of sequencing. But on my computer there's nothing "extra" happening for the computer to need to decide if there is a higher priority task than midi. The only other thing running is the clock basically. Even on my family computer where there is a bunch of shit going in the background, I still don't have sequence "tightness" issues.

DJ Hellfire wrote:I don't notice it. I've used MPC's for 15 years. Used Maschine and Reason for the past year and do not notice any difference in "tightness" of sequencing. But on my computer there's nothing "extra" happening for the computer to need to decide if there is a higher priority task than midi. The only other thing running is the clock basically. Even on my family computer where there is a bunch of shit going in the background, I still don't have sequence "tightness" issues.

we're talking about midi with external gear - are you sequencing modules from your daw? ive got a long history of using daws, and it's only when i got my mpc that i realised 'oh this is how good midi can be'.

i notice it pretty easily - even midi clock coming from my daw is crap.

and when i say 'other things going on'...i dont mean, like, running a daw while running another program. i mean at the level that is below what is exposed to the user, the computer is doing other tasks BEFORE doing the tasks the user wants.

tapedeck wrote:

DJ Hellfire wrote:I don't notice it. I've used MPC's for 15 years. Used Maschine and Reason for the past year and do not notice any difference in "tightness" of sequencing. But on my computer there's nothing "extra" happening for the computer to need to decide if there is a higher priority task than midi. The only other thing running is the clock basically. Even on my family computer where there is a bunch of shit going in the background, I still don't have sequence "tightness" issues.

we're talking about midi with external gear - are you sequencing modules from your daw? ive got a long history of using daws, and it's only when i got my mpc that i realised 'oh this is how good midi can be'.

i notice it pretty easily - even midi clock coming from my daw is crap.

and when i say 'other things going on'...i dont mean, like, running a daw while running another program. i mean at the level that is below what is exposed to the user, the computer is doing other tasks BEFORE doing the tasks the user wants.

Oh no, no external modules! I also never use midi clock. I always use MTC.

I know what you meant by the other task. But those tasks, at least on my system, account for such a small percentage of usage on the cpu/ram that I can't see how it would affect midi. I guess if you have a bunch of other effects going at the same time I could see. But I keep it mostly ITB and it's super solid for me!

So what happens with your sequencing? It just get's sloppy?

Lampdog wrote:If you wanna send an email, update your facebook, or watch Illuminati rappers music videos, I guess I would choose the MacBook...
I agree

On the other hand, if you wanna lock yourself in the studio with a stack of records, a microphone and a turntable and come up with something that sounds uniquely like you, thats got your funky, soulfull DNA all over it, then the MPC wins...
I disagree

Computers are not making better music...

I disagree, sloppy, good and outstanding music can be made on both independent of each other.

They help make recording ..........less individual sounding, but no, not better..
I'm gonna disagree with all of that.

Lets not forget that the BEATLES recorded Sgt Pepper on a 4 track tape machine, and MOTOWNS early hits were even less high-tech, so its not about the POWER of the machine...
Computers do not make music...Composers and Artists make music. Its just a symptom of being human to want more power, to fly higher and faster (the Icarus syndrome) and think that the future will always be better. All I was trying to point out is how much power do you need? Until they invent a helmet that reads our brain-waves and converts that into 64 bit audio files, our wildest dreams of pure sound and that elusive lost chord, the perfect beat will just be another fantasy...

strugglebuggiemusic wrote:

Lampdog wrote:If you wanna send an email, update your facebook, or watch Illuminati rappers music videos, I guess I would choose the MacBook...
I agree

On the other hand, if you wanna lock yourself in the studio with a stack of records, a microphone and a turntable and come up with something that sounds uniquely like you, thats got your funky, soulfull DNA all over it, then the MPC wins...
I disagree

Computers are not making better music...

I disagree, sloppy, good and outstanding music can be made on both independent of each other.

They help make recording ..........less individual sounding, but no, not better..
I'm gonna disagree with all of that.

Lets not forget that the BEATLES recorded Sgt Pepper on a 4 track tape machine, and MOTOWNS early hits were even less high-tech, so its not about the POWER of the machine...
Computers do not make music...Composers and Artists make music. Its just a symptom of being human to want more power, to fly higher and faster (the Icarus syndrome) and think that the future will always be better. All I was trying to point out is how much power do you need? Until they invent a helmet that reads our brain-waves and converts that into 64 bit audio files, our wildest dreams of pure sound and that elusive lost chord, the perfect beat will just be another fantasy...

the older machines were made better .. just look @ the u47 mic

The engineer for all of Michael Jacksons solo albums, Bruce Swedien, NEVER uses a compressor, I saw it on "Pensados Place." Hes got a microphone collection that he picks for invidual instruments and specific singers...Wisdom+Knowledge vs Computer Power...