MPC 3 - Is The “1-Sequence Only” Workflow a deal breaker?

MPC 3 forces you to have all the same exact tracks on every sequence within a project. This is not how I use this machine at all - being able to have different types of tracks on the same track number as I change sequences is how I use the MPC for live performance, and allows me to work on simultaneous tracks in my studio. All my parts exist in 1 sequence, so every sequence is a complete “song”, and I compose in real time using the track mutes. As I scroll through sequences I like to keep my kick on track 1, bass on track 2 and so on, but in one sequence my kick is from a drum program, the next sequence’s kick could be Sub Factory, or a different drum program. I record this way as well. Who else’s workflow is like this?

I have several colleagues whose workflow is just like mine, but from watching all the videos and reading all the forums, it seems like the consensus is that this change is a good thing??? There must be others who disagree.

Overall - I can’t deal with removing the drum program/kit selection per track - Drum track should look identical to Plugin track where you can scroll through kits, and removing the track length (beats per track) selection is just whack - I often have 3/4 over 4/4 or have a 16 bar sequence but use a 2 beat track for 16th note hats or something.

Yes there are workarounds, but an update should make things easier and offer more options- not make things more limited. I’ve updated Ableton (for example) since version 1, now on 12, and they have only added, not taken away.

I got the MPC because it fit into my already established workflow I’ve spent a couple decades perfecting, and have been using MPCs since the 3000 in the 90’s. I’m always excited about new updates or plugins, this is the first time I’ve been let down.

One of the great things about the MPC is how versatile it is and how it can adapt to so many different workflows - that will be over if the final release of MPC3 is like the beta.

acidpimp wrote:MPC 3 forces you to have all the same exact tracks on every sequence within a project [..]

This is exactly how I use MPC 2, as a result of the "Big loop, duplicate, mutes & tweaks, song mode" workflow. As far as I saw, this is the common way to keep a project sane. I wonder how many users enjoy an organization with different tracks on each sequence... Is that common for mostly live players ?

Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:

acidpimp wrote:MPC 3 forces you to have all the same exact tracks on every sequence within a project [..]

This is exactly how I use MPC 2, as a result of the "Big loop, duplicate, mutes & tweaks, song mode" workflow. As far as I saw, this is the common way to keep a project sane. I wonder how many users enjoy an organization with different tracks on each sequence... Is that common for mostly live players ?

I thought it was common until 3 came out and started reading the comments. With your workflow I assume you make 1 song per project? I can make a whole LP or 2 hour live show within one project. The fact that both our workflows worked in 2 is what made the machine so great and is a testament to it’s versatility.

You are definitely not alone. This is a very common workflow and there are others that will also become obsolete with where the mpc is going

They are trying to pick up the FL and ableton users. It’s a business so I completely understand but they are leaving some legacy users behind.


I’m hoping they will continue to support 2.x so we have an option

I do wonder if the people involved in the MPC3 development process were perhaps not familiar with this type of workflow so it never occurred to them that it would be an issue. If you are focused on what I feel was always the implied 'intended' use of a project (i.e. a single composition), then the new system mostly seems to make sense. But for anyone who sees a project as something that can involve multiple compositions, or even somewhere to work on multiple rough sketches around a theme, clearly this system is no longer ideal.

Yup. Decimated it for me.

Some crappy workarounds that aren't feasible.

And plenty of people telling me I don't have to upgrade. (I'm not) But knowing that bug fixes aren't likely to continue long term sucks.

Might as well use a DAW over 3.4

Everyone that isn't happy with 3.0 needs to let Akai know via the feedback forms. I haven't got round to trying it yet and I intend in doing so just so so I can send my own feedback.

For me the lack of per sequence mutes and the lack of time signature changes are total deal breakers- hopefully to be fixed in the final version!
It doesn't feel like it's unrealistic for Akai to keep the legacy users happy and the new ones..

It would be interesting to make a poll.
I would not be surprised if its a slight majority that isn't really happy with 3.x as things are.

And I think many didnt even install it, like me.
People who are actually productive with a tool are usually more reluctant to upgrade especially to a beta, especially if it has several known shortcomings like this one.
One reason is that they simply dont have the time and nerves to try a beta.

A poll with a significant number of unhappy people would also be a valid argument to change a few things, or, at least, finalize 2.x with outstanding bug fixes.

moonlake wrote:It would be interesting to make a poll.
I would not be surprised if its a slight majority that isn't really happy with 3.x as things are.

And I think many didnt even install it, like me.
People who are actually productive with a tool are usually more reluctant to upgrade especially to a beta, especially if it has several known shortcomings like this one.
One reason is that they simply dont have the time and nerves to try a beta.

A poll with a significant number of unhappy people would also be a valid argument to change a few things, or, at least, finalize 2.x with outstanding bug fixes.

Bingo!

I've not installed it either, due to the track mute situation, I'm hoping they'll add something later to make that work. I assign my hardware synths to set tracks as it is, so they on fixed tracks, audio inputs and midi, and they are all on a template, So I think I can work with the set tracks. I've not yet got my head around that though, so will look into it should they change the track mutes back to how it currently works.

moonlake wrote:It would be interesting to make a poll.
I would not be surprised if its a slight majority that isn't really happy with 3.x as things are.

I'm definitely not happy at all with what they've done for MPC3. I won't be giving up on MPC2 anytime soon. I don't like working with linear type DAW's which is why I liked to go with MPC's. MPC3 would give me reduced functionality to the way I currently like to work with MPC2. Unless there's some real significant changes to MPC3 in the future (I can't see it happening), I'll likely stick with MPC2 from here on in.

yes
it's not flexible any more

MPC-Tutor wrote:I do wonder if the people involved in the MPC3 development process were perhaps not familiar with this type of workflow so it never occurred to them that it would be an issue. If you are focused on what I feel was always the implied 'intended' use of a project (i.e. a single composition), then the new system mostly seems to make sense. But for anyone who sees a project as something that can involve multiple compositions, or even somewhere to work on multiple rough sketches around a theme, clearly this system is no longer ideal.

Do you know if there was any truth to the rumor that a standardized track layout was necessary for disc streaming?

Rumor has it that the integration of the Force software into the MPC was planned several years out (2019?) and that was a part of it.

Not saying that if this were true it would justify things from a user perspective

Yes absolutely not a rumour, we've covered this here a few times. Dan Gill (Akai product manager) said back in 2019 that moving over to a unified track system (like the Force) was a requirement of implementing disk streaming. I don't understand the technical issues around it, but here's exactly what he said:

Dan Gill, Geasrspace 2019 wrote:disk streaming is going to be a 3.0 thing, because in 2.x there's no concept of a 1 to 1 track model, so it's a pile of confusion. for instance, seq 1 can be drums on track 3, then on seq 2 it could be on track 10, or completely different programs entirely.

3.0 will be a 1 to 1 model (like force is now). track 1, when you add a drum kit or plugin will then be on track 1 in all sequences. this is probably our #1 request, actually.

No one really thought much of the consequences, but here we are, everything he alluded to is now a reality whether people like it or not.

IvoryBlack589 wrote:Do you know if there was any truth to the rumor that a standardized track layout was necessary for disc streaming?
Rumor has it that the integration of the Force software into the MPC was planned several years out (2019?) and that was a part of it.

Not saying that if this were true it would justify things from a user perspective

Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:"Big loop, duplicate, mutes & tweaks, song mode" workflow. As far as I saw, this is the common way to keep a project sane.[..]

I'm guessing I came across as dumb... And the reason is that is only now dawning on me that MPC 3 track mutes are not per sequence (as in MPC 2) but global. Yikes - there goes the workflow.

No amount of synthfluencer drivel about track mute automation recording and "just convert into one big sequence and delete notes to mute them" is going to convince me that I'm better off not being able to jam with track mutes and duplicate a sequence with different track mutes... Unless we get a proper arranger grid, which I find an adequate substitute on Roland Zenbeats.