MPC 3 -- Let's GO!!

wowzers wrote:I can't believe how many haters here are on the forum.
I mean they will update the software FOR FREE, included features to the already most advanced standalone workstation/sampler ever created.... and until now it´s not even released and they create a public beta for the users to test it out and give them feedback...
I mean,.... really.... what do you want more???


nobody is forced to do the update, it´s simple as that.
all this negativity is a shame and only one sign how much goes wrong in this world.....

No. Not forced to update but forced into no more updates unless we do.

I'm all for all of the changes made. They are excellent. It's just the lack of programs that causes issue.

I'm all for making it less confusing but this way isn't the best way for all users.

Why not set SEQ 1 as a master sequence.
So when you go to blank SEQ2 the tracks are already populated based on SEQ1
Keeps everything uniform across sequences (which was the point of dropping programs) while still retaining workflow options.

I'm Gutted I can't dig into all the new features on offer. I really want to make use of it.

Arranger view is the biggest thing for me.

And I get that some MPC users are going to miss some workflow changes.

But I like the move towards more of the things we expect working with a DAW. IMO, having an MPC Key 61 gives me a nicely integrated play, mix, arranger DAW-ish package that my head and my muscle memory can grow with.

wowzers wrote:I can't believe how many haters here are on the forum.
I mean they will update the software FOR FREE, included features to the already most advanced standalone workstation/sampler ever created.... and until now it´s not even released and they create a public beta for the users to test it out and give them feedback...
I mean,.... really.... what do you want more???


nobody is forced to do the update, it´s simple as that.
all this negativity is a shame and only one sign how much goes wrong in this world.....

Having a negative opinion about anything is not hating per se. This is a discussion forum. And part of a discussion is not being happy or satisfied about something. If you don't like reading others' opinions that are not aligned with yours you can choose not to come to the forum.
In my book, people that don't tolerate different opinions is what is wrong with the world today.

not even out yet and the tears are streaming like never before. dont update to it. it's as simple as that.

eLuSiVeMiTe wrote:I'm Gutted I can't dig into all the new features on offer. I really want to make use of it.

In order for all those new features to work smoothly the MPC platform needs that new structure. I am also a one program on multiple tracks guy, but I also desperately want a more traditional, less convoluted mixer screen. The track mixer won’t work with the OG style programs on multiple tracks. Have to close old doors if you want to open new ones.

Btw, what we have seen so far is a beta version of the first MPC update, which hasn’t have an official release date yet. I am expecting to see some things changed before it’s release, and expect to see features evolving with feature updates, e.g. sub tracks within a Track as in Logic to write complex drum patterns instead of duplicating tracks as an alternative for having a program assigned to multiple tracks.

I also understand some of the arguments that the MPC platform is becoming a DAW in a box. In order for the MPC to survive going into 2025 this is only logical to stay relevant to a bigger audience, cause no one is willing to pay Mac Pro money for a MPC3000 updated re-issue. I already miss the ‘traditional’ way of doing things sometimes on the X. That’s why I still make beats on the 2500 and 500 every now and then. And while I am very happy with the way how fast I can turn chops into full songs on my X and all the new features and enhanced workflow MPC 3 will bring, I will keep the 2500 and 500 for sure.

But for now, I just wait and see what MPC 3 will look like when it will be released.

This should be interesting.

the 2500 workflow is pretty hard to beat. I like my X but I miss my old 2500.

Picked up a 2kclassic for 150.00 a little while ago that was in basically perfect condition, with the 8 outputs and FX board. I forked out for a scsi2sd. Closest I got to going back to the 2500 without spending barely any money. It is nice to go back forth. I really love the old machines, but yes new machines are great too. I actually really enjoy the s2400 workflow because it reminds me of the 2500 so much.

As for Mpc3.0 I would just like the option of programs, but I'm assuming you can have more than 1 drum program so that's basically the same right? People just tripping that you can't use the same program on multiple tracks? I don't work that way often. I've duplicated programs and thrown em on another track but as far the X's workflow, I haven't been using the same programs on multiple tracks so I guess I'm fine? Or I hope..

I wish the software didn't look so much like maschine/traktor. It's better than grey and red, but still... I would like to see different themes for the OS that is not even out yet

Re: DAW and "arranger"

A "DAW" that has no MIDI clips is kind of handicapped, don't you think? Like:



No clips. MIDI events are directly on the track, no clip copy/paste or arranging/moving, resizing, NAMING, nothing:



Akai and their marketing guys are now making videos where they explain how the latter situation is easy and nice. I think it's totally dumb.

Menco wrote:

eLuSiVeMiTe wrote:I'm Gutted I can't dig into all the new features on offer. I really want to make use of it.

In order for all those new features to work smoothly the MPC platform needs that new structure. I am also a one program on multiple tracks guy, but I also desperately want a more traditional, less convoluted mixer screen. The track mixer won’t work with the OG style programs on multiple tracks. Have to close old doors if you want to open new ones.

Btw, what we have seen so far is a beta version of the first MPC update, which hasn’t have an official release date yet. I am expecting to see some things changed before it’s release, and expect to see features evolving with feature updates, e.g. sub tracks within a Track as in Logic to write complex drum patterns instead of duplicating tracks as an alternative for having a program assigned to multiple tracks.

I also understand some of the arguments that the MPC platform is becoming a DAW in a box. In order for the MPC to survive going into 2025 this is only logical to stay relevant to a bigger audience, cause no one is willing to pay Mac Pro money for a MPC3000 updated re-issue. I already miss the ‘traditional’ way of doing things sometimes on the X. That’s why I still make beats on the 2500 and 500 every now and then. And while I am very happy with the way how fast I can turn chops into full songs on my X and all the new features and enhanced workflow MPC 3 will bring, I will keep the 2500 and 500 for sure.

But for now, I just wait and see what MPC 3 will look like when it will be released.

A reasoned response and I can't argue against it.

Sub tracks is an interesting idea. Kinda like how the force records it's midi scenes into the arranger. Not sure how that would work with the arranger in its current form.

Said in a previous post I'd kinda expected to see midi clips given the limitations without programs. Imagery linked here yesterday showing a clip button so I live in hope.

A year ago I wouldn't have been so phased but all my hardware is boxed up after a house move (no room here) so the X and it's plugins are keeping me sane until I find somewhere better. Midi to synths workflow wouldn't be affected by the current changes.
That's probably why I don't have an issue with the mixer side of things. Everything was routed to my consoles so the plugin mixer feels normal.

I do love in hope. Could do with a dual boot loader for further testing.

MIDI clips, particularly shared non-destructive clips that don't have to be "burned" onto the track, would make the arranger hugely more useful.

HouseWithoutMouse wrote:Re: DAW and "arranger"

A "DAW" that has no MIDI clips is kind of handicapped, don't you think? Like:



No clips. MIDI events are directly on the track, no clip copy/paste or arranging/moving, resizing, NAMING, nothing:



Akai and their marketing guys are now making videos where they explain how the latter situation is easy and nice. I think it's totally dumb.

Each Sequence is an arranger view. So you could still have different sequences for different sections/clips of midi.

The structure is essentially the same as MPC 2, just the presentation is different, right?

This is actually much better than the Force since there you have just one arranger timeline.

dstengle wrote:This is actually much better than the Force since there you have just one arranger timeline.

Umm... you mean that if the Force's Arranger is like 1% useful, the MPC3's Arranger is twice that, 2% useful. Or even more, 3%?! Fine, it's still not much. I don't know if you've tried using a Force, but the "session" i.e. scene launch view is super fast to work with, for trying out different song structures and clip combinations. But it's only good for live playing - if you want to make a linear arrangement from that, you'll have to record a performance. If for some reason that's the only thing available and you need to make an mp3 or something, OK, it's doable. I've made a couple of productions with the Force's arranger as a proof-of-concept, to make sure I know how it works.

It's not an end of the world - for making actual arrangements I've got a computer and Ableton. But there's just so much unused potential here, both in the Force and now in MPC3.

People keep freaking out over the "NO MORE PROGREMZZZ" thing when it is 80% misinformation.
YES, there are STILL programs with ALL the features like filters, envelopes and drum fx INTACT.
and
YES
You can still have multiple tracks using the same program.

The two major differences in the way programs are implemented is that a program is tied to a track and all other tracks that want to send note data to that program you have to set them as midi tracks and select the appropriate program to receive note data.

The big caveat is that if you try to load an OS2 project with several tracks that use the same program it will create a program for each track that contains only the pads you have played. Very messy

Different workflow ? Totally.
Awesome \ garbage workflow ? You have to judge that

So should I not be wasting time making new programs?

HouseWithoutMouse wrote:

dstengle wrote:This is actually much better than the Force since there you have just one arranger timeline.

Umm... you mean that if the Force's Arranger is like 1% useful, the MPC3's Arranger is twice that, 2% useful. Or even more, 3%?! Fine, it's still not much. I don't know if you've tried using a Force, but the "session" i.e. scene launch view is super fast to work with, for trying out different song structures and clip combinations. But it's only good for live playing - if you want to make a linear arrangement from that, you'll have to record a performance. If for some reason that's the only thing available and you need to make an mp3 or something, OK, it's doable. I've made a couple of productions with the Force's arranger as a proof-of-concept, to make sure I know how it works.

It's not an end of the world - for making actual arrangements I've got a computer and Ableton. But there's just so much unused potential here, both in the Force and now in MPC3.

I agree about launch mode being more useful and I wish they would implement follow actions or similar. Since scenes are basically sequences maybe we can get a song mode that would chain scenes together.

I actually switched from MPC to Force but I find both frustrating with the dependence on a sloppy touchscreen UI for sequencing so now I have a hapax.

I've been trying out the MPC again as a sound source since someone came up with a workaround for the midi bug. I *really* like the new quick capture to pad.

Ideally, I'd like to be able to have a quick capture to pad on the Force, do sequencing on the hapax, but be able to play around on the Force and have more flexibility than the audio tracks.

All that said, I'm really unsophisticated with this stuff and not really composing/arranging very much. Maybe I just need to give audio tracks another try.