Mike Boogie wrote:
P.S. Oh Mike, Nice Members Only jacket!
Mike Boogie wrote:
P.S. Oh Mike, Nice Members Only jacket!
m56p87 wrote:Went and saw Roger Linn speak yesterday, I went with damien907 who made a point of asking about this specific prototype which yeilded some cool info. I'll give him a chance to post the little bits roger threw out, it was his question.
But there was a point when he talked about why the lin9000 is a 3 x 6 pad matrix and the mpc60 is the 4 x 4 we all know and love. He said he wanted to have it be 3 x 6 like the linn9000 was, but at the time those velocity sensitive pads were extremely expensive and a new company offered cheaper pad arrays if they were built in a square. Crazy that such a small thing tottally shaped controllers and samplers for decades.
He brought up that weird Linn studio thing, and a few other projects that never fully got actualized. I saw someone filming it officially, so there should be a full video to post after decible posts all their write ups etc..
It was a dope lecture from him & Carl Craig despite the room being filled to the brim with hipster douches.
sensei wrote:crossings wrote:we really need to get these guys together and make a book of all these stories... what was going on behind the scenes of the creation of these [now classic] samplers... something like that SP1200 book, but MUCH MORE complete...
This would be very cool. The SP1200 book is great, in fact I like any kofi table book associated with beat making.
peterpiper wrote:we should sue them then right?
peace
we definitely have a case.bomb beats wrote:Greatful to read these stories. But if Akai was so successful, what happened? Akai ended up getting taken over by Numark. I feel like Akai messed up when they broke ties with Roger Linn. The products that have come out since the 4000 are very questionable.
mike_mcroberts wrote:bomb beats wrote:Greatful to read these stories. But if Akai was so successful, what happened? Akai ended up getting taken over by Numark. I feel like Akai messed up when they broke ties with Roger Linn. The products that have come out since the 4000 are very questionable.
It's long strange story involving two separate instances of fraud (not on Akai's part). It's a tale of international intrigue, even involving NATO. It put them out of business. You can find the story online if you google "Akai NATO scam". The final collapse involved missing funds, and is outlined in a court case here: http://www.ipsofactoj.com/international ... 29-007.htm
Jack O'Donnell (who owns Numark), bought the name and rights.
Mike
m56p87 wrote:New article in the latest future music magazine.. "history of the mpc60".. It's funny, it's almost a word for word summary of this thread...
mike_mcroberts wrote:bomb beats wrote:Greatful to read these stories. But if Akai was so successful, what happened? Akai ended up getting taken over by Numark. I feel like Akai messed up when they broke ties with Roger Linn. The products that have come out since the 4000 are very questionable.
It's long strange story involving two separate instances of fraud (not on Akai's part). It's a tale of international intrigue, even involving NATO. It put them out of business. You can find the story online if you google "Akai NATO scam". The final collapse involved missing funds, and is outlined in a court case here: http://www.ipsofactoj.com/international ... 29-007.htm
CONCLUSION
When Akai Holdings Ltd (“the company”) was compulsorily wound up in 2000, the liquidators found little left to satisfy claims by creditors in excess of US$1 billion. The only significant source of assets appeared likely to be claims against the former management, who had made away with the company’s money, and the former auditors, who had not prevented them from doing so. But in practical terms such claims were not likely to be enforceable except through litigation. That required the liquidators to investigate what had happened and consider (with legal advice) whether the company had causes of action.
In making these investigations, the liquidators were handicapped by the sparseness of the written records which came into their hands and the unwillingness of both the former management and the auditors to assist them. The lack of progress during the first two or three years of the liquidation created a risk that any claims might become statute barred before the liquidators were in a position to decide whether the company was entitled to sue. The liquidators therefore caused a protective writ to be issued, naming as plaintiffs both the company and a number of its subsidiaries and as defendants a large number of people, including the auditors, Messrs Ernst & Young (Hong Kong) (“EYHK”).
