MPC Software 1.8 Video Compilation

Eyalc wrote:I'm seeing more and more people refer to this as a "DAW". Is that how Akai is pushing this now? No longer an instrument, but a "DAW"? Haven't paid much attention to this for a couple versions, so forgive me if that's common knowledge.

And what's with all the theatrical videos around this thing lately??? lol Just giving you guys a hard time - nice work actually. Much better than those awful MPC Minute promo videos.

It's my understanding that the MPC's have always been DAWs (Digital Audio Workstation) from the 60 to the Ren. The term DAW does not mean that it has to have audio tracks if I am not mistaken. Yes it is an instrument that is also a DAW. Correct me if I am wrong? Some people want audio tracks within the software and others want the MPC Ren to lean more towards being an instrument, I say the more options we have to create the better. Any thoughts?

Yes there are definitely different opinions. I prefer instrument. But totally understand why others want it to be more like a DAW. I just don't see it ever getting to a point to where Logic / Protools / Cubase and a few others are. Those represent my definition of a "DAW", not an MPC. But hey, like I said, I get why others want it to be more.

innerchildmusic wrote:

Eyalc wrote:I'm seeing more and more people refer to this as a "DAW". Is that how Akai is pushing this now? No longer an instrument, but a "DAW"? Haven't paid much attention to this for a couple versions, so forgive me if that's common knowledge.

And what's with all the theatrical videos around this thing lately??? lol Just giving you guys a hard time - nice work actually. Much better than those awful MPC Minute promo videos.

It's my understanding that the MPC's have always been DAWs (Digital Audio Workstation) from the 60 to the Ren. The term DAW does not mean that it has to have audio tracks if I am not mistaken. Yes it is an instrument that is also a DAW. Correct me if I am wrong? Some people want audio tracks within the software and others want the MPC Ren to lean more towards being an instrument, I say the more options we have to create the better. Any thoughts?

MPC was never considered a Workstation. A DAW is self contained (Sequencer, sounds, effects and etc). MPC was basically a sequencer and sampler. You could not complete a song using just an MPC. You would need sounds (sampled sounds loaded into it), you would need a recording source (DAT, Reel, and etc). The sample quality and simplicity of the sequencer is what made the MPC legendary. Those two pieces were so awesome that people started to try to use it exclusively as the heartbeat of every house and urban music recording and led people to call it a workstation. It was never intended to be a workstation and was not.

Do you really think Akai is not working on making this a full DAW? I bet they are. They are well on their way. From what they have already added there will be nothing left but to add a full DAW.

AidenBradley wrote:

innerchildmusic wrote:

Eyalc wrote:I'm seeing more and more people refer to this as a "DAW". Is that how Akai is pushing this now? No longer an instrument, but a "DAW"? Haven't paid much attention to this for a couple versions, so forgive me if that's common knowledge.

And what's with all the theatrical videos around this thing lately??? lol Just giving you guys a hard time - nice work actually. Much better than those awful MPC Minute promo videos.

It's my understanding that the MPC's have always been DAWs (Digital Audio Workstation) from the 60 to the Ren. The term DAW does not mean that it has to have audio tracks if I am not mistaken. Yes it is an instrument that is also a DAW. Correct me if I am wrong? Some people want audio tracks within the software and others want the MPC Ren to lean more towards being an instrument, I say the more options we have to create the better. Any thoughts?

MPC was never considered a Workstation. A DAW is self contained (Sequencer, sounds, effects and etc). MPC was basically a sequencer and sampler. You could not complete a song using just an MPC. You would need sounds (sampled sounds loaded into it), you would need a recording source (DAT, Reel, and etc). The sample quality and simplicity of the sequencer is what made the MPC legendary. Those two pieces were so awesome that people started to try to use it exclusively as the heartbeat of every house and urban music recording and led people to call it a workstation. It was never intended to be a workstation and was not.

Neither does any daw I own. Not one of them have samples in it when loads. Every daw needs sounds added. Was it intended to be a daw at creation. Prob not. But since there really isn't to much difference in the two. (Mpc or standard DAW) it would make sense for them to go that direction. Although you can't do as much as within a daw. You could still add inserts. The midi tracks well... Are tracks. There was always a mixer. And it bounced tracks. Now yes the daw can do small and important tweaks and tricks that may not be done with mpc. But it's been a daw for what a daw definition is for most of its creation. And I have had all but. 60 and 4000.

Another two:

1.8 Update
Looking forward to this update, definitely a workflow addition that will have me wanting to use my Studio more.

DAW
In regards to DAW, I think it would be a good idea to work a All in One Akai Daw, but as it stands the MPC is not a DAW in the slightest sense, its a glorified Midi Production Center, always has been, and still is ... for now...

Day Dreaming
I would love to see a Colloab between Studio One (Preosonus), Reaper maybe even BitWig and the Akai MPC Division, as I dont see the point re-inventing the wheel I would say a joint application would make sense and be a game changer all round... but im dreaming!....LOL!

So if audio tracks were added (soon I hope) would the Akai software be considered a DAW? Maybe not a fully loaded DAW but I would definitely consider it to be one.

pspsounds wrote:So if audio tracks were added (soon I hope) would the Akai software be considered a DAW? Maybe not a fully loaded DAW but I would definitely consider it to be one.

On re-thinking, I get the logic of this topic even more now. As its about the interpretation and understanding of what a DAW really is.

Our common, current use and perception of music production would separate them all, but in essence I would have to saw the current versions of MPC's are actually DAWS, cause you could if you wanted to (with varying levels of frustration) do quite a bit of DAW like work in them, e.g. vocals, mixing, basic automation..

Just would recommend it though! LOL!

I don't get the debate. It is a digital audio workstation. Period.

mr3rown wrote:On re-thinking, I get the logic of this topic even more now. As its about the interpretation and understanding of what a DAW really is.

Actually, quite easy, although the definition tends to get rather vague since recent years, as I might point out:

You generally differentiate between two kinds of software: DAW & sequencer.

A DAW (in "classical" understanding) is a workstation that can handle multiple audio files non-destructively. It compares best to an analog tape machine from ye olden days, except cutting works non-destructive.

A sequencer is a workstation handling control commands, like CV and MIDI, and ("classical" definition) normally doesn't provide anything else.

As of today, DAWs and sequencers mostly merge into each other, since there are few software applications that don't do both. It's hard to separate them nowadays, making the acronym "DAW" rather interchangeable. I usually still try calling applications either sequencer or DAW, depending on the usage they were originally intended for.

But as I already said, differentiating between these is nowadays almost pointless, since almost all of them can handle all the required functions.

83dude wrote:

mr3rown wrote:On re-thinking, I get the logic of this topic even more now. As its about the interpretation and understanding of what a DAW really is.

Actually, quite easy, although the definition tends to get rather vague since recent years, as I might point out:

You generally differentiate between two kinds of software: DAW & sequencer.

A DAW (in "classical" understanding) is a workstation that can handle multiple audio files non-destructively. It compares best to an analog tape machine from ye olden days, except cutting works non-destructive.

A sequencer is a workstation handling control commands, like CV and MIDI, and ("classical" definition) normally doesn't provide anything else.

As of today, DAWs and sequencers mostly merge into each other, since there are few software applications that don't do both. It's hard to separate them nowadays, making the acronym "DAW" rather interchangeable. I usually still try calling applications either sequencer or DAW, depending on the usage they were originally intended for.

But as I already said, differentiating between these is nowadays almost pointless, since almost all of them can handle all the required functions.

+1

mr3rown wrote:1.8 Update
Looking forward to this update, definitely a workflow addition that will have me wanting to use my Studio more.

Same here bro! It is quite hard for me to go from ren to studio due to the chopping workflow...this additions are what would make the difference...

Sweet Unicycling Christ! I know I've been saying I will buy the Studio for awhile now but I haven't felt this compelled until now. Really the only essential for me that's missing is xfade looping. I think I can live without it for right now though. I do miss the MPC way of doing things.

innerchildmusic wrote:
It's my understanding that the MPC's have always been DAWs (Digital Audio Workstation) from the 60 to the Ren.

Right below the logo