What could an MPC X mk II be like?

CharlesRandolph wrote:

Menco wrote:I think most MPC X users rather have the a decent software upgrade instead of a hardware upgrade.

100% because if they don't, no one is going to buy the MPC X MK II. This is one reason so many people down graded from the X to One.

I have a MPC Live and was talking to wise man about a back-up MPC and we touched on the MPC X... But, I’m wondering with all three MPCs sharing the same OS, would it be more cost-effective to get the MPC One or maybe even the MPC Live MK2?

I don't find the MPC One *that* much smaller than a Live, though if you want something you can toss around it's pretty good. If it had a battery it'd be a no brainer... but. The Live to Live mk2 isn't that stellar of an upgrade... definitely not worth it unless you want CV outs, or a speaker... biggest point I could come up with is a refreshed battery and new warranty. Again... probably not worth it.

My journey was Live -> X -> Live mk2. If I hadn't sold off my Live I definitely wouldn't have gone for the mk2. At the time I sold off my Live I also had an X, 1k, and 500... so in my attempt to downsize and sell things off, I decided to offload the Live, then the 1k sold. I ended up missing the Live format more than I thought, so decided to get the Live mk2 when it came out, and then sold off the X. I'll probably sell off the 500 at some point, and if a X mk2 came out, I'd definitely consider seriously picking one up... if I could find the room to place it someplace.

EnochLight wrote:On a serious note, I'm wondering what actual MPC-X users would really want at this point? What are the glaring issues that you'd want addressed on an MPC-X "version 2" (that could be addressed while keeping the exact same 2 GB of RAM and CPU that we all know they'll use to keep things in line with the Live 2, One, and Force)?

I could see akai releasing a 4gb X because it would seem like a crazy feature upgrade.

Stupid forum topic about the MKII when the MK III is already in my avatar.

stefcien wrote:everyone wanted a "standalone" now everyone wants "a monitor and mouse".

Didn't know standalone stood for no hdmi out.

16 CV/gate outs that actually do -5 -> + 5 V
(cross) fader or two
digital out(s) / adat

Judging from the comments hopefully Akai will make a controller with plenty IO and avoid putting a PC to MPCs.
It will cost less than a mini-PC including hiring a tech to make a partition dedicated to audio, smaller too...

Tabletop wrote:

EnochLight wrote:On a serious note, I'm wondering what actual MPC-X users would really want at this point? What are the glaring issues that you'd want addressed on an MPC-X "version 2" (that could be addressed while keeping the exact same 2 GB of RAM and CPU that we all know they'll use to keep things in line with the Live 2, One, and Force)?

I could see akai releasing a 4gb X because it would seem like a crazy feature upgrade.

More RAM ,more loading times. Even if they put 16G ram you'd have to wait minutes to load the samples (regardless the speed of the ssd)
The solution is called disk streaming. I'd prefer 2G ram with streaming ,rather 32G without

stefcien wrote:everyone wanted a "standalone" now everyone wants "a monitor and mouse".

Or...some people want modern tools to complete a task more efficiently and not worried about how it was done in past.

SuperKonquer wrote:

stefcien wrote:everyone wanted a "standalone" now everyone wants "a monitor and mouse".

Or...some people want modern tools to complete a task more efficiently and not worried about how it was done in past.

I don't want to use a personal computer, period. Though I would like some options that where standard on a 2007 machine from Roland. That's all, just monitor and mouse support to edit songs and sequences a bit faster but apparently people can't see the benefit in that and think you're requesting to turn it in to a personal computer.

Not having to use a mouse is for many one of the reasons to pick a standalone machine over a PC. There are definitely situations in which using a mouse is more convenient, but then why not use a computer all together if you already step away from that standalone feel by using a mouse?

Off course there are always those who like to be in the middle, of want a bit of both. But I am afraid that group is too small to sooth. I am sorry 64hz, but mouse and monitor support,I don’t see that happening any time soon.

Me neither but just blatantly saying it takes away from the stand alone aspect is plain wrong imho.

justineastwick wrote:I have a MPC Live and was talking to wise man about a back-up MPC and we touched on the MPC X... But, I’m wondering with all three MPCs sharing the same OS, would it be more cost-effective to get the MPC One or maybe even the MPC Live MK2?

I would just get the MPC ONE unless there's a particular reason to get the MPC X. I've found there's nothing the X can do that the One can't, when composing music. So I'll just export stems, instead of tracking them in. As far as the MPC X MKII, I won't even consider it, unless it's a desktop or laptop replacement.

Menco wrote:Not having to use a mouse is for many one of the reasons to pick a standalone machine over a PC. There are definitely situations in which using a mouse is more convenient, but then why not use a computer all together if you already step away from that standalone feel by using a mouse?

Off course there are always those who like to be in the middle, of want a bit of both. But I am afraid that group is too small to sooth. I am sorry 64hz, but mouse and monitor support,I don’t see that happening any time soon.

They need to add qwerty keyboard support first or maybe a shift functions on the MPC LIVE and ONE that works as arrow keys. But mousing around on 7 inch screen, just seems like eye strain waiting to happen.

64hz wrote:Me neither but just blatantly saying it takes away from the stand alone aspect is plain wrong imho.

Standalone technically usually means that a device can be used without a computer.
So you’re right when you say that after adding a mouse and screen an MPC is still a standalone device.

But I definitely agree that using a mouse and screen feel less standalone, and only a half step away from using a computer.