With 2.7 is out of the way, what do you think 2.8 should be?

We need a LOOP IN RELEASE on/off

Currently, the MPC will loop the selected loop region in its envelope release phase (i.e., when the note is let go).
This becomes a problem if the user would like to leave that loop range once the note is let go.
MPC cannot do this.

An example: I sampled a nice sound from Roland JV-1010 where it does a filter sweep when played and when note is released.
I'd like to loop the "middle part" with MPC, and once I let go of the note, the playhead should leave the loop range and play what is after it.

Ableton Sampler does this well, for example, and you can have it loop in release, or it can leave the loop range in release stage.

Wassup ya'll!

Here are a few of my top requests...Let's Go!

Class Compliant USB MIDI (In/Out)
Class Compliant 8 channel Stereo Audio output (Standalone)
Class Compliant Audio Interface Compatibility (Standalone)
Bluetooth Midi Out
Midi/Audio Tracks appear on one screen like DAW UI
USB/Bluetooth Mouse Compatibility (Standalone)

Fanu wrote:We need a LOOP IN RELEASE on/off

Currently, the MPC will loop the selected loop region in its envelope release phase (i.e., when the note is let go).
This becomes a problem if the user would like to leave that loop range once the note is let go.
MPC cannot do this.

An example: I sampled a nice sound from Roland JV-1010 where it does a filter sweep when played and when note is released.
I'd like to loop the "middle part" with MPC, and once I let go of the note, the playhead should leave the loop range and play what is after it.

Ableton Sampler does this well, for example, and you can have it loop in release, or it can leave the loop range in release stage.

This has also bothered me not being able to do this! This is a much better explanation than I could have made. LOL

This feature would be very useful.

aobeezy415 wrote:Wassup ya'll!

Here are a few of my top requests...Let's Go!

Class Compliant USB MIDI (In/Out)

How many Ins and outs?

Class Compliant 8 channel Stereo Audio output (Standalone)

So you want 16 outs, Along with the siz on the Live and eight on the x?

Class Compliant Audio Interface Compatibility (Standalone)

This is already possible.

Midi/Audio Tracks appear on one screen like DAW UI

Traditionally, the MPC has never worked like this. This UI works better if you have more screen real estate.

USB/Bluetooth Mouse Compatibility (Standalone)

This would be nice for the MPC X.

Bluetooth Midi Out

Try the MD-BT01or UD-BT01

Parameter locks and all the great stuff elektron sequencers do, multi midi in, sample lach hold from note on, disk streaming, all the things they have said will becoming, no splice, no plugin crap, just a dope mpc

16 outs is cool... but imagine 16 ins.

CharlesRandolph wrote:

aobeezy415 wrote:Wassup ya'll!

Here are a few of my top requests...Let's Go!

Class Compliant USB MIDI (In/Out)

How many Ins and outs?

Class Compliant 8 channel Stereo Audio output (Standalone)

So you want 16 outs, Along with the siz on the Live and eight on the x?

Class Compliant Audio Interface Compatibility (Standalone)

This is already possible.

Midi/Audio Tracks appear on one screen like DAW UI

Traditionally, the MPC has never worked like this. This UI works better if you have more screen real estate.

USB/Bluetooth Mouse Compatibility (Standalone)

This would be nice for the MPC X.

Bluetooth Midi Out

Try the MD-BT01or UD-BT01

1. Midi 2 Ins /4 Outs

2. 16 Mono/8 Stereo both Live/X (I know this is a bit greedy, so I'm not mad at 8 mono channels over USB.
Just to be clear, I would like to use the MPC without having to use MPC Software to transmit audio/MIDI over USB. If this is possible, lace me on how this works?

Yamaha Montage/Roland Fantom 6 both have this feature using a vendor provided firmware, but if this was class compliant the game would be over for me . I could focus more on production instead of having to explode tracks, bounce audio, connecting cables to interface mixer etc...

Maybe a few Effects like an octave or ringmodulator.sp606 has a effect called subsonic which generates a sine which you can tune and put under a kick for example

A mod matrix with the option for negative values. The flexibility to choose destination and source.

Hmmm, where have I seen this before...?

Oh yeah, the 4000!

Now who made that? Maybe they should copy them...

And while they copying features from ancient hardware: Portamento.

A phase inverter.

Spectrum Analyzer.

The ability to switch off Splice.

I'd like to be able to route submixes to other submixes.

The ability to control my toaster.

helloitsmeagain wrote:A mod matrix with the option for negative values. The flexibility to choose destination and source.

[i]Hmmm, where have I seen this before...?

Oh yeah, the 4000!

Yeah the 4000 should be their blueprint, but for some reason it’s not. I’m thinking that they don’t really own the IP for it. That’s the only logical explanation for not including every single function from the 4000 / Z platform in the current MPC lineup.

Eyalc wrote:Yeah the 4000 should be their blueprint, but for some reason it’s not. I’m thinking that they don’t really own the IP for it. That’s the only logical explanation for not including every single function from the 4000 / Z platform in the current MPC lineup.

I suspect it's simply down to technical expertise. The MPC is built using Juce and then automatically compiled into the various different platforms. The skills needed for building apps in this type of environment are likely very different to those needed to code older firmware OS, so I would imagine its not particularly practical for Akai to try directly 'translating' the 4000 code to the new MPCs.

Instead they would probably just want to copy the ideas/concepts of particular features, but build the code from scratch. However the new MPCs are based on the MPC5000 spec, not the Z4 spec so I imagine it's not a case of easily dropping in these features, they'd probably require quite a significant re-write of the core code structures. Unfortunately the MPC5000 itself was really just the 1000/2500 with added bits and pieces, which were in turn evolved from the 2000XL. The 4000 had it's own unique path.

MPC-Tutor wrote:

Eyalc wrote:Yeah the 4000 should be their blueprint, but for some reason it’s not. I’m thinking that they don’t really own the IP for it. That’s the only logical explanation for not including every single function from the 4000 / Z platform in the current MPC lineup.

I suspect it's simply down to technical expertise. The MPC is built using Juce and then automatically compiled into the various different platforms. The skills needed for building apps in this type of environment are likely very different to those needed to code older firmware OS, so I would imagine its not particularly practical for Akai to try directly 'translating' the 4000 code to the new MPCs.

Instead they would probably just want to copy the ideas/concepts of particular features, but build the code from scratch. However the new MPCs are based on the MPC5000 spec, not the Z4 spec so I imagine it's not a case of easily dropping in these features, they'd probably require quite a significant re-write of the core code structures. Unfortunately the MPC5000 itself was really just the 1000/2500 with added bits and pieces, which were in turn evolved from the 2000XL. The 4000 had it's own unique path.

Aaaand this is the best explanation I’ve read. And makes sense. The 4000 / Z always seemed like the direction that were going to head it, which would have awesome. then the 2500 / 5000 showed up. It became confusing back then, as the 2500 / 5000 seemed like a step backwards from where they got to with 4000. Wish they would have committed to the 4000 path and kept on it. I didn’t realize the 5000 spec was the foundation for these, and makes sense now.

Eyalc wrote:Aaaand this is the best explanation I’ve read. And makes sense. The 4000 / Z always seemed like the direction that were going to head it, which would have awesome. then the 2500 / 5000 showed up. It became confusing back then, as the 2500 / 5000 seemed like a step backwards from where they got to with 4000. Wish they would have committed to the 4000 path and kept on it. I didn’t realize the 5000 spec was the foundation for these, and makes sense now.

You have to remember, the 4000 was the last thing the "real" Akai did, and even then it wasn't the original Akai, it was the management team that bought the company from the original folks. The 2500/5000 is the Numark/inMusic era. Totally different brains behind everything, with a totally different focus on their business (ie money money money, who cares that you make music). I remember reading years ago, they don't have any of the IP for the 4000. They technically 'own' it but its lost, gone, I think Akai JP said screw you guys and trashed it so they wouldn't get ahold of it. Who knows. They had a **** winner of the century there but for whatever reason it wasn't important enough that someone made sure all that data passed on to the new owners. Numark had to start from scratch and look at the 2000 instead, which they actually had all the documentation and everything on.

The 4000 couldn't have been that tough though.. It has an Intel CPU/DSP in there I think, probably some C language. Not like the MPC60 and 2000 that were written in BASIC heh.

It should be possible to run the MPC 4000 v. 1.7 file through a Disassemblers.

Monotremata wrote:You have to remember, the 4000 was the last thing the "real" Akai did, and even then it wasn't the original Akai, it was the management team that bought the company from the original folks. The 2500/5000 is the Numark/inMusic era.

Totally different brains behind everything, with a totally different focus on their business (ie money money money, who cares that you make music). I remember reading years ago, they don't have any of the IP for the 4000. They technically 'own' it but its lost, gone, I think Akai JP said screw you guys and trashed it so they wouldn't get ahold of it. Who knows.

They had a **** winner of the century there but for whatever reason it wasn't important enough that someone made sure all that data passed on to the new owners. Numark had to start from scratch and look at the 2000 instead, which they actually had all the documentation and everything on.

The 4000 couldn't have been that tough though.. It has an Intel CPU/DSP in there I think, probably some C language. Not like the MPC60 and 2000 that were written in BASIC heh.

Fix the glitches