MPC XL - CODE NAME ACV5S - A NEW MPC X FOR SOON ?

Bring on the rants, bring on the praise, bring on the constructive feedback, that's what the forum is here for

Nothing inherently bad about listening and implementing user requests, however the platform does seem to be getting more buggy, less stable and the firmware workflows more fragmented with each update as Akai cram in as many bells and whistles as the marketing department and social media requests of them. So while people are buying more units in the short term, what is the long term impact on the reputation of the MPC as a stable, reliable machine? No good having lots of shiny features if it can't be trusted not to crash live on stage or the firmware has become too complex and convoluted to navigate efficiently. Some of the recent bugs have been eye watering.

I don't know why they don't just get several experts like Tutor, tubedigga etc and listen to what they think the platform needs. I know it's not that easy for big companies to do stuff like that because of all the rules they have but it would be much better than listening to youtubers angling for views and likes.I

Just imagine what the MPC could become if Tutor was the head of development

At Akai....Marketing and Sales, Runs the Show

40Beatz wrote:At Akai....Marketing and Sales, Runs the Show

That's all businesses these days. Used to be finance and CEO but marketing got on the board, even though that makes no sense, and now marketing run the businesses.

THXjay wrote:I don't know why they don't just get several experts like Tutor, tubedigga etc and listen to what they think the platform needs. I know it's not that easy for big companies to do stuff like that because of all the rules they have but it would be much better than listening to youtubers angling for views and likes.I

Just imagine what the MPC could become if Tutor was the head of development

Akai have been listening tho; and they have been impllemnting hence why the akia resurgence; think back to early 2010 when mashcine had the game on lock and akai listened and evovled and surpassed NI in this market.

THXjay wrote:Let's save the planet (that's my excuse) and stop using plastic....give us a metal case in that.

Counterpoint: the metal/steel industry is one of the biggest polluters on the planet, adding 7% of all manmade carbon emissions annually. The entire industry is mostly still fueled by coal. So if you really want an MPC case that saves the planet, better start planning on a recycled paper bag.

jpeg wrote:

THXjay wrote:I don't know why they don't just get several experts like Tutor, tubedigga etc and listen to what they think the platform needs. I know it's not that easy for big companies to do stuff like that because of all the rules they have but it would be much better than listening to youtubers angling for views and likes.I

Just imagine what the MPC could become if Tutor was the head of development

Akai have been listening tho; and they have been impllemnting hence why the akia resurgence; think back to early 2010 when mashcine had the game on lock and akai listened and evovled and surpassed NI in this market.

I agree is most of what u said they did liste n .. I original sold my 2500 bought a maschine studio and komplete 61 awhile back and hated the work flow since I have always been use to the MPC.. went back to my 3000 & 2000 sold all maschine gear... NI have great expansions and kontakt libraries.. I bought the X and soon as it was released and been happy ever since.. then a few weeks ago I bought Maschine Mk3 because I wanted to have hardware control of the maschine software and regretted the move sent that shit back in 3 days of buying.. I'm hoping for a new X with 16 stereo and 32 mono outputs either ethernet or USB3.. I'll pay 3k for it..

what would you say is the most stable firmware? I need to downgrade, this shit is getting out of hand... I shoulda never deleted update files.

MPC-Tutor wrote:Bring on the rants, bring on the praise, bring on the constructive feedback, that's what the forum is here for

Nothing inherently bad about listening and implementing user requests, however the platform does seem to be getting more buggy, less stable and the firmware workflows more fragmented with each update as Akai cram in as many bells and whistles as the marketing department and social media requests of them. So while people are buying more units in the short term, what is the long term impact on the reputation of the MPC as a stable, reliable machine? No good having lots of shiny features if it can't be trusted not to crash live on stage or the firmware has become too complex and convoluted to navigate efficiently. Some of the recent bugs have been eye watering.

One of the reasons I stopped buying hardware and decided to go the software only root is that hardware is the same as software nowadays, full of bugs! But at least software is far cheaper, even free and gets updated and bugs fixed far quicker.

I use MuLab and it is developed by one man, yet it is one of the most reliable programs available.

Hardware is great, and the MPC range has so many features that for newcomers like myself, its a steep learning curve. Yet I don't regret the purchase of my Live 2. I really would like the X now that I've got my head around its work flow, but think I'd miss the portability and speakers.

I dislike having to install the app to use the live as a controller for other software though.

Akai really need to focus more on bug fixing to keep these machines rock solid stable. For a company that big, there's no excuse. If one man alone can keep a daw rock solid, then akai, and all other hardware and software manufacturers should be ashamed!

Certified Beatz wrote:

jpeg wrote:
Akai have been listening tho; and they have been impllemnting hence why the akia resurgence; think back to early 2010 when mashcine had the game on lock and akai listened and evovled and surpassed NI in this market.

I agree is most of what u said they did liste n .. I original sold my 2500 bought a maschine studio and komplete 61 awhile back and hated the work flow since I have always been use to the MPC.. went back to my 3000 & 2000 sold all maschine gear... NI have great expansions and kontakt libraries.. I bought the X and soon as it was released and been happy ever since.. then a few weeks ago I bought Maschine Mk3 because I wanted to have hardware control of the maschine software and regretted the move sent that shit back in 3 days of buying.. I'm hoping for a new X with 16 stereo and 32 mono outputs either ethernet or USB3.. I'll pay 3k for it..

mk3 looks good; but i am just over native instruments and NI; they squandered they market lead due to hubris and poor product strategy; they took the maschine user base for granted.

Where as Akai hyper foucsed on devloping the MPC software and hardware and it has paid off handsomely; cos if ur think where the mpc was 10 years ago versus where it is now; besides the small bugs MPC is phenomenal thats why I dont have too much cirtique for Akia, they have done a great job.

Am sure when MPC XL comes out it will come with version 3.0 and all thats needed is bug fixes; and add the force mixer and sequencer view.

As far as the hardware hopefully they do something special; I am sure they have seen the success of s2400 and the interest of the rossum sp1200; so if they can take a similar approach and use some of those old circuits for A/D and add that to the pot, I think that would be a great way to come full circle and make good on the orginal claims made about the MPC renisance, regarding the vintage modes for the mpc60 and mpc3000.
Cos they orginally claimed that it was hardware based circuit models but we later found out it was all software, so for the aniversary XL unit they need to come trhough with the goods

ontherun wrote:Maybe akai ist at a point where they Realise using an SOC and Linux wasn't the best choice and they run into problems that are just to complex to fix. Hence the audio Interlace problems. Still really love my one, II just use it like my 2500 and ignore a Lot of New Features.

Their issues have nothing to do with running on Linux or a SOC. Linux is solid and ARM-based SOCs are tried and tested.

It's just down to their own development bugs.

All of those bugs would have happened whether it was their own OS on an Intel processor or custom ASIC chips.

Without Linux, they'd have to develop their own audio interface drivers. If your audio interface isn't supported by AKAI with Linux, it wouldn't be supported by AKAI without Linux. But AKAI could push for them to develop Linux drivers if their device isn't fully class-compliant.

Linux itself is stable enough to be used in mainframes and high-performance computing. It's definitely not down to that

--

If it seems like hardware was more stable when they had "hardware" sound generators built with custom ASICs, it's mostly because they were much simpler:

1. You couldn't plug in USB hard-drives and audio interfaces
2. There was no Wifi (and integration with online accounts)
3. There were no extensible third-party plugins
4. There was no complex GUI
5. The DSP algorithms were much simpler

But they could make it more stable if they wanted. It's just a matter of time and resources.

Avasopht wrote:If it seems like hardware was more stable when they had "hardware" sound generators built with custom ASICs, it's mostly because they were much simpler:

1. You couldn't plug in USB hard-drives and audio interfaces
2. There was no Wifi (and integration with online accounts)
3. There were no extensible third-party plugins
4. There was no complex GUI
5. The DSP algorithms were much simpler

But they could make it more stable if they wanted. It's just a matter of time and resources.

^^ THIS ^^

Also, everyone waxes poetic about how "old hardware was more stable". Clearly they never worked on Ensoniq gear from the 80's and early 90's - that's what got me in the habit of saving my progress and saving it often (random OS crashes for no reason other than the wind blew in the wrong direction).

To be frank, the MPC of today is far, FAAAAAR more powerful & complex than they were 10 years ago, and even though there are some long standing bugs, I wouldn't trade my Live II or Force for any of that old stuff.

EnochLight wrote:

Avasopht wrote:If it seems like hardware was more stable when they had "hardware" sound generators built with custom ASICs, it's mostly because they were much simpler:

1. You couldn't plug in USB hard-drives and audio interfaces
2. There was no Wifi (and integration with online accounts)
3. There were no extensible third-party plugins
4. There was no complex GUI
5. The DSP algorithms were much simpler

But they could make it more stable if they wanted. It's just a matter of time and resources.

^^ THIS ^^

Also, everyone waxes poetic about how "old hardware was more stable". Clearly they never worked on Ensoniq gear from the 80's and early 90's - that's what got me in the habit of saving my progress and saving it often (random OS crashes for no reason other than the wind blew in the wrong direction).

To be frank, the MPC of today is far, FAAAAAR more powerful & complex than they were 10 years ago, and even though there are some long standing bugs, I wouldn't trade my Live II or Force for any of that old stuff.

nobody can disagree on the power and feature set of the current MPC line; but the build quality of the hardware from now till then is debateable, so if they can combine the old school build quality with the current OS that would be the dream MPC.

Avasopht wrote:If it seems like hardware was more stable when they had "hardware" sound generators built with custom ASICs, it's mostly because they were much simpler:

1. You couldn't plug in USB hard-drives and audio interfaces
2. There was no Wifi (and integration with online accounts)
3. There were no extensible third-party plugins
4. There was no complex GUI
5. The DSP algorithms were much simpler

But they could make it more stable if they wanted. It's just a matter of time and resources.

LOL and when they DID start getting things like USB connectivity, etc...

Ever open up an Akai S5000/6000? Nice big Intel i386 inside there running the show, looks almost like a desktop computer inside. My EMU is the same, but they went with Motorola chips instead of Intel.

Did the "big" 386 do the DSP and everything too? Having strict, even physical, separation between components does make it easier to reach stability, but more difficult to change the structure and add features. Making changes is kind of the enemy of stability, by definition.