MPC 3 -- Let's GO!!

Monotremata wrote:

LivePsy wrote:How TF did any tester not mention this? I'm afraid the people who get to be early testers are just Yes men.

How TF do people know the testing team DIDNT mention it? You're all freaking out over a beta release that isn't even public yet, has already changed since it WAS released, and have absolutely NO idea what is going on with the whole program.

Seriously folks relax, you might live longer.

Monotremata wrote:

LivePsy wrote:How TF did any tester not mention this? I'm afraid the people who get to be early testers are just Yes men.

How TF do people know the testing team DIDNT mention it? You're all freaking out over a beta release that isn't even public yet, has already changed since it WAS released, and have absolutely NO idea what is going on with the whole program.

Seriously folks relax, you might live longer.

It doesn't make a difference to me since I don't plan on updating until the official version is released. I only have 1 MPC at the moment, so I refuse to be Akai's guinea pig. I want to get a 2nd MPC, but I honestly believe Akai will drop a new hardware device with 3 already pre-installed. That's the only reason why I haven't bought a 2nd MPC, yet.

BackOnDaMPC wrote:It doesn't make a difference to me since I don't plan on updating until the official version is released. I only have 1 MPC at the moment, so I refuse to be Akai's guinea pig. I want to get a 2nd MPC, but I honestly believe Akai will drop a new hardware device with 3 already pre-installed. That's the only reason why I haven't bought a 2nd MPC, yet.

Once 3 is finalized and fully rolled out then it will come with 3. I can't see them installing 3 before this point, then it has to be shipped and distributed. So for a while stores will have to move current stock all pre-installed with 2, before moving new stock with 3.

So we may be well into next year before 3 is pre-installed onto machines, and it will vary depending on the popularity of the models. Even now when you buy a new hardware, the best thing to do is to check the firmware is up to date. After receiving my MPC-One, and several of my hardware synths they all had out of date firmware and needed updating.


I only have one main reason for not upgrading to MPC3, but I'm not sweating it, as I think it won't even be an issue by the time it's fully rolled out. I have a secondary concern, that I think I'll be able to work around. But should the first be resolved, then I can only see to many benefits to shifting to mpc3. Then further benefits will come over the next few years.

Neodymium wrote:

BackOnDaMPC wrote:It doesn't make a difference to me since I don't plan on updating until the official version is released. I only have 1 MPC at the moment, so I refuse to be Akai's guinea pig. I want to get a 2nd MPC, but I honestly believe Akai will drop a new hardware device with 3 already pre-installed. That's the only reason why I haven't bought a 2nd MPC, yet.

Once 3 is finalized and fully rolled out then it will come with 3. I can't see them installing 3 before this point, then it has to be shipped and distributed. So for a while stores will have to move current stock all pre-installed with 2, before moving new stock with 3.

So we may be well into next year before 3 is pre-installed onto machines, and it will vary depending on the popularity of the models. Even now when you buy a new hardware, the best thing to do is to check the firmware is up to date. After receiving my MPC-One, and several of my hardware synths they all had out of date firmware and needed updating.


I only have one main reason for not upgrading to MPC3, but I'm not sweating it, as I think it won't even be an issue by the time it's fully rolled out. I have a secondary concern, that I think I'll be able to work around. But should the first be resolved, then I can only see to many benefits to shifting to mpc3. Then further benefits will come over the next few years.

I agree. This is what I anticipated

LivePsy wrote:How TF did any tester not mention this? I'm afraid the people who get to be early testers are just Yes men.

How do you know what beta testers are reporting? They just report their findings, offer feedback etc. The ball is then entirely in Akai's court, the testers have no say in what gets fixed or changed.

machinesworking wrote:

hyena wrote:of course they will not bring back time signature management, if you really observe how things move, the direction is clear: dumbing down. very few people use time sigs other than 4/4 anymore so why t f bother? damn, i know i sound really like a grumpy grandpa but i'm really pissed off.

Well you can currently change the time signature in a track in stand alone, it's just buried and awkward AF. But yeah I'm unfortunately convinced you're right, they're not worried about it, so it's probably the same idiotic add measures in new signature, then delete old signature BS.

Hopefully you're wrong and they snuck it in to regular track management like it is in the software on the PC. Just most of these influencers don't notice because all they do is 4/4.

yah i know, but its really annoying and it causes issues with song mode and funny stuff....
i often do composite time sigs, sometimes i break them down (example: 7/4 becomes 2/4 + 3/4 + 2/4) and its really useful because of the metronome when i have to play some instrument by hand over it...
i still hope they will bring regular time sig on main page for each seq like on every other mpc, but i'm afraid it'll never happen.

have to laugh at people being butt hurt that the public beta has not started; somehow they assumed sign up for public beta meant they would get imediate access.

We have been waiting for 3.0 for 4/5 years so why get so irate at having to wait a few more weeks

EnochLight wrote:LMAO! Just no. No it doesn’t.

LMAO! It actually does!

Or maybe you can point me to the other standalone device that you can configure as a custom groove box with sequencers and fully user selected control scheme, then load another template and make it into a guitar FX rig with looping, then load another and it's a custom synth engine with fine MPE controls, or a generative ambient machine, or a sample chopping playground - admittedly the MPC is now better for this, but looks to be "gaining" pretty much the same structural constraints in 3.0 that will probably put it more or less on a par. But beyond the basic parameters Push is essentially a blank canvas that can be configured in infinite different ways, especially bringing Max into the equation. As far as I can see there's nothing that comes remotely close to this level of possibility, but maybe you can correct me.

machinesworking wrote:it really is a world of difference to the MPC, which even now is perfectly capable of finishing entire songs in standalone.

Yeah, not only do I not care about song mode or trying to do full tracks from start to finish in standalone, I actively think that insisting on mushing together two extremely different phases of the creative process - i.e. freeform experimentation and idea generation va structured linear arrangement, mixing and polishing - inevitably comes at a cost to one or the other part of the process. For my hardware devices, I always want experimentation / playability, because it turns out that software DAWs are really, really good at the other stuff.

Taking the Push example, in standalone I only ever want to play my custom instruments / groove boxes or just catch a vibe and write a whole bunch of alternative clips and sequences, then go into Live and pick through what I've got and look at ways of developing and presenting it. Tbh I'm actually starting to lean towards using Logic for this because I prefer its editing / timing tools, either way sync up and treat the DAW as a tape machine. For me this leans on the strengths of both.

Fwiw I think the MPC 2.0 has/had a good balance, I never thought the tradeoff of keeping tabs of what program is on what track in a sequence was too much of a burden for people who also want to do most/all of their arranging in standalone. But obviously others feel differently.

I get that for a lot of people it's a holy grail to be able to say "this DAW is so DAWless that you can do a full track without ever touching the *spit* computer, because actually this computer in a custom casing is not really a computer", but I personally see it as a massive red flag when manufacturers go in this direction. Just don't ever think it's ever gonna work.

benway wrote:Yeah, not only do I not care about song mode or trying to do full tracks from start to finish in standalone, I actively think that insisting on mushing together two extremely different phases of the creative process - i.e. freeform experimentation and idea generation va structured linear arrangement, mixing and polishing - inevitably comes at a cost to one or the other part of the process. For my hardware devices, I always want experimentation / playability, because it turns out that software DAWs are really, really good at the other stuff.

Taking the Push example, in standalone I only ever want to play my custom instruments / groove boxes or just catch a vibe and write a whole bunch of alternative clips and sequences, then go into Live and pick through what I've got and look at ways of developing and presenting it. Tbh I'm actually starting to lean towards using Logic for this because I prefer its editing / timing tools, either way sync up and treat the DAW as a tape machine. For me this leans on the strengths of both.

Fwiw I think the MPC 2.0 has/had a good balance, I never thought the tradeoff of keeping tabs of what program is on what track in a sequence was too much of a burden for people who also want to do most/all of their arranging in standalone. But obviously others feel differently.

I get that for a lot of people it's a holy grail to be able to say "this DAW is so DAWless that you can do a full track without ever touching the *spit* computer, because actually this computer in a custom casing is not really a computer", but I personally see it as a massive red flag when manufacturers go in this direction. Just don't ever think it's ever gonna work.

What do you think people did with the MPC 60 when it came out? They recorded whole songs, then maybe added things like live bass and vocals in a studio. The process of writing being easier with actual linear song modes is not somehow unimportant because you like dragging things between more than one sequencer.

Live is a great example, the linear Arrangement Page in Live is severely limited compared to Cubase, Logic, DP, Reaper etc. etc. You're arguing that DAWs are superior while using a DAW that limits features because likely you feel it helps you in the creative process not to be overwhelmed with options. So which is it? Are the limitations and UX important or is it unlimited features?

I'm just going to say it, v3 without even being out yet, has resulted in rampant neophobia in nearly every corner of the interweb that it's being discussed.

benway wrote:
Yeah, not only do I not care about song mode or trying to do full tracks from start to finish in standalone, I actively think that insisting on mushing together two extremely different phases of the creative process - i.e. freeform experimentation and idea generation va structured linear arrangement, mixing and polishing - inevitably comes at a cost to one or the other part of the process. For my hardware devices, I always want experimentation / playability, because it turns out that software DAWs are really, really good at the other stuff.

Fwiw I think the MPC 2.0 has/had a good balance, I never thought the tradeoff of keeping tabs of what program is on what track in a sequence was too much of a burden for people who also want to do most/all of their arranging in standalone. But obviously others feel differently.

I get that for a lot of people it's a holy grail to be able to say "this DAW is so DAWless that you can do a full track without ever touching the *spit* computer, because actually this computer in a custom casing is not really a computer", but I personally see it as a massive red flag when manufacturers go in this direction. Just don't ever think it's ever gonna work.

nobody is insiting anything; the arranger is there for those who want it;

if u dont want to use the arranger u dont have to use the arranger.

I dont get why people are crying about features being added; simply use the features u want to use and ignore the rest.

u say it wont work having a mini DAW in the box; but it is working, i have seen videos of beta testers do their whole song structure in standalone without issue.

jpeg wrote:

benway wrote:
Yeah, not only do I not care about song mode or trying to do full tracks from start to finish in standalone, I actively think that insisting on mushing together two extremely different phases of the creative process - i.e. freeform experimentation and idea generation va structured linear arrangement, mixing and polishing - inevitably comes at a cost to one or the other part of the process. For my hardware devices, I always want experimentation / playability, because it turns out that software DAWs are really, really good at the other stuff.

Fwiw I think the MPC 2.0 has/had a good balance, I never thought the tradeoff of keeping tabs of what program is on what track in a sequence was too much of a burden for people who also want to do most/all of their arranging in standalone. But obviously others feel differently.

I get that for a lot of people it's a holy grail to be able to say "this DAW is so DAWless that you can do a full track without ever touching the *spit* computer, because actually this computer in a custom casing is not really a computer", but I personally see it as a massive red flag when manufacturers go in this direction. Just don't ever think it's ever gonna work.

nobody is insiting anything; the arranger is there for those who want it; if u dont want to use u dont have to use the arranger.

I dont get why people are crying about features being added; simply use the features u want to use and ignore the rest.

u say it wont work but it is working; i have seen videos of beta testers do their whole song structure in standalone without issue.

I think the bigger issue is features being removed...

benway wrote:LMAO! It actually does!

LMAO - nah, it actually doesn't!

We could literally spend an entire thread pissing on the Push 3 for all of its shortcomings and limitations, just as much as we can piss all over the MPC or Force for its shortcomings and limitations, but make no mistake - MPC (and by extension, Force) can do things that Push 3 cannot - full stop. And yes - Push 3 can do things that neither MPC/Force can do. It all boils down to preference, and clearly you're beholden to Ableton Live and Max devices. But suggesting Push 3 shits all over MPC is clearly insane. I mean, I get we're all fan boys here to an extent, but come on dude...

benway wrote:

EnochLight wrote:LMAO! Just no. No it doesn’t.

LMAO! It actually does!

Or maybe you can point me to the other standalone device that you can configure as a custom groove box with sequencers and fully user selected control scheme, then load another template and make it into a guitar FX rig with looping, then load another and it's a custom synth engine with fine MPE controls, or a generative ambient machine, or a sample chopping playground - admittedly the MPC is now better for this, but looks to be "gaining" pretty much the same structural constraints in 3.0 that will probably put it more or less on a par. But beyond the basic parameters Push is essentially a blank canvas that can be configured in infinite different ways, especially bringing Max into the equation. As far as I can see there's nothing that comes remotely close to this level of possibility, but maybe you can correct me.

machinesworking wrote:it really is a world of difference to the MPC, which even now is perfectly capable of finishing entire songs in standalone.

Yeah, not only do I not care about song mode or trying to do full tracks from start to finish in standalone, I actively think that insisting on mushing together two extremely different phases of the creative process - i.e. freeform experimentation and idea generation va structured linear arrangement, mixing and polishing - inevitably comes at a cost to one or the other part of the process. For my hardware devices, I always want experimentation / playability, because it turns out that software DAWs are really, really good at the other stuff.

Taking the Push example, in standalone I only ever want to play my custom instruments / groove boxes or just catch a vibe and write a whole bunch of alternative clips and sequences, then go into Live and pick through what I've got and look at ways of developing and presenting it. Tbh I'm actually starting to lean towards using Logic for this because I prefer its editing / timing tools, either way sync up and treat the DAW as a tape machine. For me this leans on the strengths of both.

Fwiw I think the MPC 2.0 has/had a good balance, I never thought the tradeoff of keeping tabs of what program is on what track in a sequence was too much of a burden for people who also want to do most/all of their arranging in standalone. But obviously others feel differently.

I get that for a lot of people it's a holy grail to be able to say "this DAW is so DAWless that you can do a full track without ever touching the *spit* computer, because actually this computer in a custom casing is not really a computer", but I personally see it as a massive red flag when manufacturers go in this direction. Just don't ever think it's ever gonna work.

For me both parts work very well on the current software, "experimenting" that is finding and arranging "snippets" as well as arranging them into a song and polishing that.
Both parts work better for me on MPC then in a classical linear single timeline DAW.

There is a bit too much clicking back and forth but thats unavoidable when you seperate every task into small screens and you get used to it quickly.
And I doubt 3 can improve on that very much, except by crammimng more on a single page which I dont think is a wise UIX decision.
Besides of MPCs there is another niche alternative to DAWs and that is trackers,
and I actually switched from long time Cubase to Sunvox ( a tracker where you can arrange pattern clips in a time line, very cool free modular software) briefly before I got the MPC.

And each time I thought, I was using linear sequencers for too long ( since mid 90s) and how much more a different aproach suits me.


(Sorry for not reducing the quote to the relevant part, I am on mobile atm)

machinesworking wrote:You're arguing that DAWs are superior while using a DAW that limits features because likely you feel it helps you in the creative process not to be overwhelmed with options. So which is it? Are the limitations and UX important or is it unlimited features?

No, I'm not. I'm saying that for me a full DAW is better at some things - editing, arranging, mixing, polishing. But in general worse at others - jamming, pretty much. And that as far as I can see it given the limitations and UX that inevitably come with standalone hardware that yr DAWless DAW is always going to be a worse experience for the former than just using a computer. Unless it gets to the point of attaching a 19" monitor, mouse and keyboard, at which point what's the difference from just using a computer?

This is a subjective opinion through, if that wasn't obvious. But it seems like you're hearing a bunch of canned "options paralysis" internet opinions that I'm not in any way saying nor do I hold. Options are good imho, you can always choose to just use the ones that work for you ... unless they get removed. Also you must've missed the part where I said I lean towards Logic over Ableton for arranging tracks started on the Push. Hope that clears it up.

EnochLight wrote:But suggesting Push 3 shits all over MPC is clearly insane.

And again, just so you're disagreeing with what I'm actually saying - Push 3 shits all over anything else out there MPC included in terms of creative possibilities because of how powerful and flexible it is and the range of possible use-cases. I think that's just an objective fact. That doesn't mean it's always and everywhere "better" - as I said a couple of times already, I prefer the MPC for sample-based creation and live performance ... in 2.0 at least. And the super flexible, open ended thing I like about it might equally be a downside for a lot of people.

moonlake wrote:Both parts work better for me on MPC then in a classical linear single timeline DAW.

Yeah, I tend to agree - even though I do mostly just bounce and stitch together in a DAW usually using the plugin rather than doing much "finishing" in standalone, putting together the building blocks of a track is quick and simple. It's a unique process that's working just fine, 2.0 is far from perfect but it still has the MPC core as well as plenty of DAW built on top if that's what people want.

Just to be absolutely clear because people seem to be picking up things I am not putting down. I'm not saying that Akai shouldn't go all in on DAWless DAW or whatever or that people shouldn't want this. If it was just a thing of adding more DAW stuff, I doubt I'd be likely to use too much of it but I'd still be happy enough that they're catering to people who clearly really do want this. The problem is that they're fixing to blow up the MPC core in the process.

It was a public test of the waters, and they actually thought that missing the sequence muting would be OK for the public to see. Wow, but this is OK to you. The mute is not the massive problem, that they had no idea this feature is important is the problem. I don't think they have any idea what the traditional MPC work is and why it is so popular.

Monotremata wrote:

LivePsy wrote:How TF did any tester not mention this? I'm afraid the people who get to be early testers are just Yes men.

How TF do people know the testing team DIDNT mention it? You're all freaking out over a beta release that isn't even public yet, has already changed since it WAS released, and have absolutely NO idea what is going on with the whole program.

Seriously folks relax, you might live longer.