MPC Ren's Vintage Mode Revealed

Pete (Akai developer) gave some clarification on the MPC Ren's Vintage Mode in another forum.

peteblues wrote:just in case it's still unclear....the vintage mode that lets you choose between the 60, 3000, and sp1200 is ITB.

peteblues wrote:I admit, that part (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vES0AGL4mhw?t=1m) is a bit misleading. Vintage mode is ITB, and then there's the analog circuitry from the 3000 after the converters, that's only in the Ren.

JAH wrote:Pete (Akai developer) gave some clarification on the MPC Ren's Vintage Mode in another forum.

peteblues wrote:just in case it's still unclear....the vintage mode that lets you choose between the 60, 3000, and sp1200 is ITB.

peteblues wrote:I admit, that part (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vES0AGL4mhw?t=1m) is a bit misleading. Vintage mode is ITB, and then there's the analog circuitry from the 3000 after the converters, that's only in the Ren.

Thanks for the info. Dan seems pretty knowledgeable. I think they're wasting too much time on the 3000 though. Regardless of Internet popular opinion. The 2000 series...2000XL in partcular was the most popular MPC and probably produced the most hits.

3000 was popular amongst keyboardist who used it as a drum machine. When it came to making full compositions the 2000XL was the most popular hands down. 2500 and 4000 are better machines, but were less popular because people were stuck on the 2000XL and people that used the MPC for merely drums held on to their 3000s.

MPCWeapon1 wrote:plus its good to be able to assign outs to tracks/parts instead of pads.

The lack of this feature was one of the main workflow killers that made tracking out from the 2500 such a chore. Sometimes I'd have a bunch of sounds loaded in a program, and use a couple on the same track. Going back and trying to find which pad you use on that track so you can set the output was a real pain in the ass!

DJ Hellfire wrote:

MPCWeapon1 wrote:plus its good to be able to assign outs to tracks/parts instead of pads.

The lack of this feature was one of the main workflow killers that made tracking out from the 2500 such a chore. Sometimes I'd have a bunch of sounds loaded in a program, and use a couple on the same track. Going back and trying to find which pad you use on that track so you can set the output was a real pain in the ass!

I feel any type of mixer should have channels that are routable.

DJ Hellfire wrote:

MPCWeapon1 wrote:plus its good to be able to assign outs to tracks/parts instead of pads.

The lack of this feature was one of the main workflow killers that made tracking out from the 2500 such a chore. Sometimes I'd have a bunch of sounds loaded in a program, and use a couple on the same track. Going back and trying to find which pad you use on that track so you can set the output was a real pain in the ass!

JJOS for the win!

DJ Hellfire wrote:

MPCWeapon1 wrote:plus its good to be able to assign outs to tracks/parts instead of pads.

The lack of this feature was one of the main workflow killers that made tracking out from the 2500 such a chore. Sometimes I'd have a bunch of sounds loaded in a program, and use a couple on the same track. Going back and trying to find which pad you use on that track so you can set the output was a real pain in the ass!

Tracking out is def a chore on the 2500. It's kind of anitquated. I mean even Beat Thang has a solid export option. It's such a comfortable machine though it's hard to pull away from it. Ideas just flow on that machine with JJOS.

DJ Hellfire wrote:

MPCWeapon1 wrote:plus its good to be able to assign outs to tracks/parts instead of pads.

The lack of this feature was one of the main workflow killers that made tracking out from the 2500 such a chore. Sometimes I'd have a bunch of sounds loaded in a program, and use a couple on the same track. Going back and trying to find which pad you use on that track so you can set the output was a real pain in the ass!

it´s all a matter of organization/housekeeping.

i can´t complain tracking out my 2500 beats. thanks to jj, of course

**** wrote:

DJ Hellfire wrote:

MPCWeapon1 wrote:plus its good to be able to assign outs to tracks/parts instead of pads.

The lack of this feature was one of the main workflow killers that made tracking out from the 2500 such a chore. Sometimes I'd have a bunch of sounds loaded in a program, and use a couple on the same track. Going back and trying to find which pad you use on that track so you can set the output was a real pain in the ass!

it´s all a matter of organization/housekeeping.

i can´t complain tracking out my 2500 beats. thanks to jj, of course

Not really. If I load a program full of hi hats and only use 3, there isn't really any efficient way of housekeeping that. This is why I like Maschine. If I load a bunch of sounds and don't use them all, I can at least see what samples I used just by seeing which ones have notes on them.

The main problem with tracking the 2500 is the limited amount of outputs. I always use an amount of samples that require at least 2-3 record passes. With Maschines 32 outs, I can track most beats in one pass!

DJ Hellfire wrote:If I load a program full of hi hats and only use 3, there isn't really any efficient way of housekeeping that.

oh yes there is.

think on a per track basis. one track per instrument (kick, snare, hat, perc, etc.).

easy as that! stay organized!

and i usually have to track my beats in 2-3 passes, too. but man, this doesn´t take ages.

**** wrote:

DJ Hellfire wrote:If I load a program full of hi hats and only use 3, there isn't really any efficient way of housekeeping that.

oh yes there is.

think on a per track basis. one track per instrument (kick, snare, hat, perc, etc.).

easy as that! stay organized!

The track doesn't tell you what pad/s you used. You can go into Step Edit to see what's used, but I don't like putting my hats on different tracks, or my layered snares on different tracks, or my layered kicks. Sometimes I use up to 3 or 4 different snares and sometimes up to 3 kicks. Having each one on a separate track in the MPC is messy for me. So with my style of working, even the Step Edit viewing is a **** because it shows notes every time they occur. Makes live pad mutes during tracking a real pita having all the drums on separate tracks.

DJ Hellfire wrote:The track doesn't tell you what pad/s you used.

that doesn´t matter, no? because if i have a hihat track i don´t care what samples from what pads from what program i´ve used.

i just route this track to e.g. outs 2/3, record that to reaper and boom there is my hihat track!

**** wrote:

DJ Hellfire wrote:The track doesn't tell you what pad/s you used.

that doesn´t matter, no? because if i have a hihat track i don´t care what samples from what pads from what program i´ve used.

i just route this track to e.g. outs 2/3, record that to reaper and boom there is my hihat track!

It does matter because you can't route the output of the track (unless OSXL let's you do this, which I don't use). You can only route the output of the PAD (on OS1). This is the point of my original comment. It's nice how the 4000 let's you route the output of the track. But even still, even though I use multiple sounds on the same track in the MPC, I don't like them on the same track in Pro Tools. In Pro Tools, I separate everything. I would be able to put up with having to find what sounds/pads are used on a track if the thing had more than 8 outputs!

DJ Hellfire wrote:
It does matter because you can't route the output of the track (unless OSXL let's you do this, which I don't use). You can only route the output of the PAD (on OS1). This is the point of my original comment. It's nice how the 4000 let's you route the output of the track. But even still, even though I use multiple sounds on the same track in the MPC, I don't like them on the same track in Pro Tools. In Pro Tools, I separate everything. I would be able to put up with having to find what sounds/pads are used on a track if the thing had more than 8 outputs!

yeah I agree.. I think it might be cool to have both.. or it might be cool if there was a way to assign or automatically have pads on particular tracks? not sure how this would work in actual practice... it might wind up annoying.. but lets say you push record.. you band in a full drum beat with hats, kicks, snares, etc.. but it's all separated automatically.. yeah pads assigned to outs sort of fixes that.. but it would wind up being cool if you could export in the ren... a separate out for each pad. Why have the oldschool 8 out limit?

DJ Hellfire wrote:OSXL let's you do this, which I don't use

i feel sorry for ya

**** wrote:

DJ Hellfire wrote:OSXL let's you do this, which I don't use

i feel sorry for ya

Time for everybody to step up to that 128OSXL.