What could an MPC X mk II be like?

CharlesRandolph wrote:

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.

I believe Lampdog uses a bluetooth qwerty keyboard with his X? And yes, not having the arrow buttons on the Live/X make these in my experience inferior to the X. But I think that’s about it.

Menco wrote:I believe Lampdog uses a bluetooth qwerty keyboard with his X? And yes, not having the arrow buttons on the Live/X make these in my experience inferior to the X. But I think that’s about it.

The qwerty keyboard only works for typing names. You can't use it for functional shortcuts or as a midi controller.

CharlesRandolph wrote:

Menco wrote:I believe Lampdog uses a bluetooth qwerty keyboard with his X? And yes, not having the arrow buttons on the Live/X make these in my experience inferior to the X. But I think that’s about it.

The qwerty keyboard only works for typing names. You can't use it for functional shortcuts or as a midi controller.

Aah, I see.

To more daw-like features our standalone devices have, the more we want it to behave like a daw

CharlesRandolph wrote:

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.

I just wanted a main MPC or something for a back-up in case my MPC Live goes down. The MPC X would’ve been my next purchase, but if the MPC One AND MPC Live MK2 does exactly the same thing, what’s really the point, you know? I did see a MPC X for $1400 on Reverb recently and have been side-eyeing it. LOL.

The main difference between the One and the X is the hardware. So if you need more audio ins, more audio outs, more midi outs, more q-links... then the X is great. If you're not expecting to need those things, or just need something as a backup for the "what if my Live dies"... then yeah, the One should get you 90% of the way there and you can create stems and stuff to fake it until you got the Live working again.

NearTao wrote:The main difference between the One and the X is the hardware. So if you need more audio ins, more audio outs, more midi outs, more q-links... then the X is great. If you're not expecting to need those things, or just need something as a backup for the "what if my Live dies"... then yeah, the One should get you 90% of the way there and you can create stems and stuff to fake it until you got the Live working again.

I recently purchased a MIDI patchbay, so I guess I can hook up my MIDI sound modules to that... That’ll cut down on using all the MIDI I/O on my MPC, right?

For the audio I/O: I only use OUTPUT 1/2 (the main outs) for my MPC Live right now. When I get the S2400, I’ll probably be using OUTPUT 3/4 to go right into the S2400’s INPUT 1/2 and I’ll plug the S2400’s OUPUT 1/2 to my 16-channel line mixer (which the mixer’s OUTPUT will go into the MPC Live’s INPUT),

I have a relatively small set-up: one rack mount mixer, the MPC Live (S2400 is on the way), one turntable, one synth keyboard, two rack mount sound modules, a MIDI patchbay and studio monitors...

I guess the MPC One could probably be the main MPC and maybe the MPC Live MK1 could be the back-up...

justineastwick wrote:I just wanted a main MPC or something for a back-up in case my MPC Live goes down. The MPC X would’ve been my next purchase, but if the MPC One AND MPC Live MK2 does exactly the same thing, what’s really the point, you know? I did see a MPC X for $1400 on Reverb recently and have been side-eyeing it. LOL.

Yeah, internally they all do the same thing, so basically it's come down to physical space and form factor. I really don't change my setup very much, because I'm much more concerned with actually making music. Get the best pieces you afford, put your head down and go.

MPC X MKII would just be a Luxury Item. Some People prefer A Cadillac Escalade with all the Bells n Whistles. Sure you can buy a Chevy Tahoe, Base Model. They both get you from Point A to B.

IPhone 12 vs Motorola Flip Phone

40Beatz wrote:MPC X MKII would just be a Luxury Item. Some People prefer A Cadillac Escalade with all the Bells n Whistles. Sure you can buy a Chevy Tahoe, Base Model. They both get you from Point A to B.

IPhone 12 vs Motorola Flip Phone

Only issue is the Cadillac (MPC X), is really a painted Chevy Tahoe Base Model (MPC ONE), with the same engine, spinner rims, and more cup holders.

NearTao wrote:As a previous MPC X owner... I really liked almost the entire experience. Main reason for selling was because I don't need 3+ MPCs.

The form factor and size are great. It's big, but not a beast like the 4k. The 4 ins was freaking brilliant, and *nearly* gets you out of needing a crappy desk mixer. The OLED displays on the Q-Links are game changers, and probably the one thing I miss from going back to the Live. I do think that dropping a digital in/out of any kind is very poor.

My short list of what I'd be looking for with hardware:
* Improved touch screen, the bigger screen *is* better than the Live, but only because the size makes it more accurate
* ADAT or similar digital ins/outs, I mean come on!
* 6 or 8 Inputs... greedy? Perhaps... but gets me that much further away from needing/wanting a mixer
* 4 way split pads. Keep the 4x4 grid, but have each pad be able to function as a single pad or have different events per 2x2 quadrant on the pad. This would let it do Force kinds of tricks
* Thunderbolt port to let you expand audio ins/outs through a class compliant audio device
* Dedicated arranger controls... (to go with arrangement software)
* Upgradable memory... fine to start at 2gb... for those that want 8gb or 16gb... let them go nuts.
* 8 CV inputs... because dang could we do cool generative effects if we could just get it back in and route things around... plus just recording CV... could be sweet

Thanks. This was the only post that seems to nail a laundry list of things the X needs. As far as the upgradable memory is concerned, I'd personally be fine with the included 2 GB if Akai can just get that magic unicorn known as disc streaming working right.

Menco wrote:
Aah, I see.

To more daw-like features our standalone devices have, the more we want it to behave like a daw

I just want Akai Pro to at least USB ASCII Keyboard commands like the MPC 4000. But ASCII to MIDI would be nice to have because as it is, using a keyboard to just type the name is pretty limiting. They could, map each functions to a ASCII key and sell a keyboard shortcuts overlay.

Menco wrote:To more daw-like features our standalone devices have, the more we want it to behave like a daw

It's a fair assessment, and an equally fair desire to have them behave as such. We've grown lazy yet extremely fond of our DAW's. Having much of that "Daw-like" functionality in a standalone hardware package like the current-gen MPC series just makes a lot of sense, IMHO. I'll always prefer to do my final mixdown and mastering in a proper DAW, though. MPC's will never be able to touch the agility and power of iZotope's Neutron and Ozone (among other plugins), but I digress...

NearTao wrote:The main difference between the One and the X is the hardware. So if you need more audio ins, more audio outs, more midi outs, more q-links... then the X is great. If you're not expecting to need those things, or just need something as a backup for the "what if my Live dies"... then yeah, the One should get you 90% of the way there and you can create stems and stuff to fake it until you got the Live working again.

These new machines really need to have the ability to properly network within a modern studio. I'm one of the last of my peers who even uses MPC's and track them in real time. I've been doing lots of remixes as of late and using a MPC, then syncing via MIDI is just a horrible way to work.

Basically it's like writing a book by hand, then re-typing it out on computer. So after 2 remixes, the MPC is strictly used as a drum pad controller, when doing that kind of work. Going "Dawless" is cute and all until it's really time to get some work done.

CharlesRandolph wrote:

Menco wrote:
Aah, I see.

To more daw-like features our standalone devices have, the more we want it to behave like a daw

I just want Akai Pro to at least USB ASCII Keyboard commands like the MPC 4000. But ASCII to MIDI would be nice to have because as it is, using a keyboard to just type the name is pretty limiting. They could, map each functions to a ASCII key and sell a keyboard shortcuts overlay.

I agree, that would improve workflow immensely. Talking about daw behavior/ features inside the MPC, I was really hoping on Mackie/HUI implementation. Would still love to see that happen, cause that mixer in standalone mode is still a mess and a huge turn off imho. Think Enoch requested that as well? I think we can also make the conclusion here that all the added features weren’t introduced with the ease of accessing as with the older models/ features and more shortcuts/ better control options could make this a better MPC.

EnochLight wrote:

Menco wrote:To more daw-like features our standalone devices have, the more we want it to behave like a daw

It's a fair assessment, and an equally fair desire to have them behave as such. We've grown lazy yet extremely fond of our DAW's. Having much of that "Daw-like" functionality in a standalone hardware package like the current-gen MPC series just makes a lot of sense, IMHO. I'll always prefer to do my final mixdown and mastering in a proper DAW, though. MPC's will never be able to touch the agility and power of iZotope's Neutron and Ozone (among other plugins), but I digress...

Was just pointing out the irony, but you’re definitely right. Just like our cellphones and tv’s have become smartphones and smart tv’s it’s more than logical that we have a ‘smart mpc’. The line between standalone units and daws is a very blurry one at the moment. I’m fine with traditional on a lot of fronts, and can do a lot on the MPC, but won’t ever be able to live without a daw.