MPC 3 -- Let's GO!!

BIAM wrote:Do we think a new MPC is coming as well, like an MPC X but better?

MPC Z is around the corner along with MPC live 3.0


MPC live 3 Z
MPC Freezy

I think some of us already got the MPC Freezy, that 2.17 or whatever last update was buggy af my MPC was freezing like crazy after I added stems

jpeg wrote:seem like the legacy MPC users are the main ones with reservations; those who who come from the 2500, 2000xl, era.

The people who got on the akai bandwagon in this current live2, mpc one era are not complaining at all.

But when I think back to how horrible the akai OS was for the MPC1000 until JJOS came and saved the day; am thinking people should have zero complaints about this new 3.0 OS.

Again I think some people who were very dismissive of the notion of there even being a 3.0 are a bit shell shocked; so they are diggin they heels in, but once they try it and find things they like, most of the so called show stoppers will fade, as people find new workarounds.

I have a Live 1 and I'm definitely complaining about 3.0. Thankful for the update, but upset about them "force"-ing us into the one to one track workflow. I've never even touched a legacy MPC, but I dont see why the entire workflow has to change for Akai to give me the features I really need (Mixer and Track Colors and track reordering, and Audio tracks on the same screen as MIDI tracks). Make it make sense, Akai, please.

dustyslices wrote:just my 0.001 cents:
you buy a device for what it is at purchase time, there is no sticker on the box that promise you future updates (free nor paid) - plugins or additional functionalities are extra. The only thing I expect from them is to provide bugfixes for stuff that doesn't work as it should or as it was advertised.
Having said that, I'd be pissed if for example I didn't liked the 3.x workflow which break my habbits but that is the only way to fix for example a midi bug. In that scenario I'd feel that my mpc was missold to me as it force me to use it in a completely different manner that it was advertised.

THIS.

40Beatz wrote:See that's the joy of have more than one MPC. We can Update one and Stay in 2.xx Land on the other MPC's. Haven't updated yet. Busy weekend. But I'll check it out

Yes, this is what Ill be doing. One MPC for 3.0, one for 2.X

I'll update and put up with the awkwardness; much of what I do is just selecting sounds and recording them live anyway. I know how to do what I need to do in a more DAW based environment. The MPC-isms are more a formality than a need for me, I'm willing to move on if a better alternative is offered and MPC 3 seems to be streamlining a few things that I already do. Also, some of my favorite current music is made in a DAW, but I prefer hardware. It'd be cool if, theoretically, Akai could bridge that gap and (I guess) make the DAW-like features more approachable.

My gut reaction upon watching the announcement video, though, was "Why?" I feel like 99% of the people saying they could never use an MPC until this probably will probably never gel with it for one reason or another. So will it be better for the people who actually stick around and probably don't have a problem with how things are now? Dunno.

Also, people who like DAWs like the flexibility of VSTs. Nobody, nobody in the world, who truly wants the functionality of a DAW is going to limit themselves to InMusic's walled garden ecosystem if that's what they're trying to do. So the MPC will always be about working with samples and/or sequencing hardware instruments at a fundamental level, even if they choose to brand it otherwise. Until they allow third party VSTs in standalone (which they won't for obvious reasons), this whole attempt to capture a DAW audience is pointless. Nobody who wants a plugin-based workflow is going to limit themselves to the MPC.

ceeprm wrote:JOne thing that I don't quite get with 3.0 is that if all the tracks are now the same across sequences and say you have drums on track 1, does that kit have to be the same across all the sequences.

From what I've seen and how I understand it, yes there would just be one program on a track across the entire project. So you won't be able to have a different kit on the same track across sequences in the normal way.

So if this is the case when would anyone now use the 100+ sequences on offer given that every sequence now has identical tracks?
A typical project on my mpc live has 50 or so sequences all with different ideas, sketches and arrangements etc..

Well, it seems like a lot of the demos are showcasing making whole tracks in a single pattern, so there's that.

I guess you could still do live shows or experiment with a bunch of samples/chops in the same way that's easy now by creating lots of tracks or super complicated programs with multiple drum kits and chops.

The whole idea of the track/program change is supposed to be to make the process easier for "beginners", but I'm not how this is supposed to be easier or less complicated.

moonlake wrote:
And its fine. As long as these guys dont try to tell the users how they should use it.

benway wrote:

moonlake wrote:Just one word on that: if you think that things needed a change for your personal workflow, than you didnt have a real workflow on that machine before.

^^^

This is really jumping out at me atm, there's a lot of "oh, if the box just worked in a completely different way I might like it this is the best update ever", which in a lot of cases I'm reading as "I never put in the hard yards to understand how the current box actually works and how it could work for me". And I suspect that a lot of these same people aren't going to approach 3.0 much differently, so will still be complaining in a year's time - this is a lot of where I'm coming from when I wonder about Akai potentially walking themselves into a no-win situation here.

They already are. Caught one of those today. According to him the problem with MPC's is that they don't function like Ableton as he was used too. So it's "outdated". Everyone will like it except us "legacy users". And I should watch a video by a youtuber because there's nothing wrong with track mutes.

So we're the problem and I should watch a video to explain me how I am wrong even though it's factual that I'm not. Which is super funny.

And Jpeg is what it is. "I was right in an internet forum. Suck it". Faith is faith. No point in arguing. Even if the mythical MPC3 is ......SUSPENSE........ the Force OS.

All the casuals singing praises will most likely be the first to abandon/complain about how convoluted it is because it's not exactly like "insert DAW" or how it's slower because it takes X clicks, pinching the touchscreen, etc. Lack of effort. The reason these things exist is their differences. Limits breed creativity.
If Im gonna use something that clearly ends up being a dawless DAW i'm probably gonna start thinking about QoL, comfort and power.

I also have a Push2, a Maschine+ (which I love to death because it is limited) and an SP404. Imagine getting mad because they don't work like an MPC.

benway wrote:Well, it seems like a lot of the demos are showcasing making whole tracks in a single pattern, so there's that.

I guess you could still do live shows or experiment with a bunch of samples/chops in the same way that's easy now by creating lots of tracks or super complicated programs with multiple drum kits and chops.

The whole idea of the track/program change is supposed to be to make the process easier for "beginners", but I'm not how this is supposed to be easier or less complicated.

That sucks for experimenting. But i'm gonna keep my mouth shut until I see how that interacts with song mode. Which is still gonna suck without the track mutes but it is what it is.

If you want to keep the number of tracks limited and controllable across a long set or project, like 4-8 tracks or something, but also have lots of different sounds changing between parts/sequences, the Force/MPC3 feature that supports this is not drum tracks/programs, or keygroups or plugins, it is... audio tracks. If you want flexible MIDI based things, you'll have to use lots of separate tracks. But with audio, you can have a wide variety of sound from the same track.

I wish Akai would make MPC2 open source while they carry on developing MPC3.

Neurone wrote:I wish Akai would make MPC2 open source while they carry on developing MPC3.

Been thinking the same over the last few days.

They won't for one simple reason - 75% - 80% of the code are still the same recycled but proprietary functions, classes and objects, on top of it it's sprikled with a metric ton of open source dependencies.

moonlake wrote:like others I used to copy sequences, mute and unmute tracks, change tracks.
Also change programs, for instance quite often I would copy and change a program slightly, make a variation.

I do the same all the time with programs. Specifically I’ll have a program for the main sample chops and duplicate and pan hard L and R or create multis to remix the sample

But I think we’ll still be able to do this in 3. We can still duplicate tracks and make different adjusting to each one I have to assume…

jpeg wrote:I think all the negativity will evapourate once peeps start using the new 3.0

people are stuck in they ways; and dont want change they just have a bug fix only mindset

also lotta people did not even think 3.0 was coming to they world view far as akai has been shifted; to they clining on to their legacy workflow mindsets, and are closed to anything new.

but its as its still in beta i expect this mute issue will be remidied as it is so easy to do.

To me this is a negative attitude. This isn’t complaining about new features or being closed minded. Some of us really enjoy mpcs for the way they operate and to fundamentally change it to something different changes the way we’ll make music. How you cant understand the frustration leads me to believe you don’t really use the mpc much or haven’t for too long. Which is fine, but to try and throw shade at folks who have legit concerns shows a lack of knowledge about how these machines are used.