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

[/quote] 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.[/quote]

EXACTLY. I want the blank canvases back. Each seq used to be empty. And tracks could be deleted from one seq without affecting all the others. Now, volume, panning etc, it's all tied to the whole project. If you want to use the "new" reorder track feature, it'll shuffle all the others as well. This was a wild idea to implement. It should be optional just like the global/per seq track mutes now are with beta 2.

J.O.BEATS wrote: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

yeah. gotta be able to scroll to the next seq and it be empty

The whole thing reminds me of my main DAW Digital Performer. A similar concept to the way Programs work in 2 is present in DP, in the V-Rack, and with multiple sequences, which is similar in concept to the way Programs can be used by any track in any sequence in 2.

DP also has some issues though with these any track/sequence V-racked instruments, they can't use plugin automation, only old school MIDI learn with cc's. There must be some sort of underlying thing to having what would be the best thing for us as end users, streaming editable audio files, programs/instruments that are not tied to sequences, it must present some weird math issue with code?

The odd part to me is I would expect that printing all of that to single song is where it would get weird, but the Akai dude mentions streaming audio.

As an MPC 4000 user (also w/ MPC Live 2) - I personally think they should implement (but they won't) multiple Projects and you click Shift -> Next Seq button and it let's you switch between Projects with the pad. W/ the 4000, it had the concept of a "Multi" which held all Programs that are used, the FX, the Mixer settings, etc all saved in the Multi. You could select a Multi/ with a program change. So you could embed a specific Multi (which was a list of Programs, FX, Settings, etc) to be used by each Sequence. Then you could use next Seq to switch between "songs" which could have it's own list of programs, volume settings and fx settings.

Making it so the MPC could load more than one project (of course limited by memory and cpu) and switch between them in real time, would be a perfect solution. You an use Next Sequence to switch between different parts of your song, and use Next Project to switch between different songs.

Of course it's not going to happen but it would make the MPC a killer live machine. Right now, w/ the MPC 3 structure, an external sequencer to sequence things while the MPC is reloading is the only solution I've been able to come up. And then sending a re-start command from the external sequencer to bring the MPC back in with the new song.

renegadebliss wrote:As an MPC 4000 user (also w/ MPC Live 2) - I personally think they should implement (but they won't) multiple Projects and you click Shift -> Next Seq button and it let's you switch between Projects with the pad. W/ the 4000, it had the concept of a "Multi" which held all Programs that are used, the FX, the Mixer settings, etc all saved in the Multi. You could select a Multi/ with a program change. So you could embed a specific Multi (which was a list of Programs, FX, Settings, etc) to be used by each Sequence. Then you could use next Seq to switch between "songs" which could have it's own list of programs, volume settings and fx settings.

Making it so the MPC could load more than one project (of course limited by memory and cpu) and switch between them in real time, would be a perfect solution. You an use Next Sequence to switch between different parts of your song, and use Next Project to switch between different songs.

Of course it's not going to happen but it would make the MPC a killer live machine. Right now, w/ the MPC 3 structure, an external sequencer to sequence things while the MPC is reloading is the only solution I've been able to come up. And then sending a re-start command from the external sequencer to bring the MPC back in with the new song.

That sounds like a really cool feature from the 4k. Without something like that, it's like these companies are expecting us to buy 2 of the same device like turntables. I see what going on

The new workflow is great for music production. But the MPCist playing his music live has lost 2 essential features that, at least in my case, hinder the live workflow. Let me explain:

1) In 2.15, the MPCist had the flexibility to have each sequence start with a different track, or with a different order of tracks. This favored the choice of having the first track of each sequence as a "quick access track" for finger drumming, for example. This brought agility and freer hands. In MPC 3, you had to turn the main knob, or press MAIN to choose the tracks. For the MPCist playing live, these are precious seconds. Any additional action increases the chance of errors.

2) In MPC 2.15, using the "Track Mute" feature allowed the sectorization of different songs per track. Now, in MPC 3, with the track order repeating across all sequences, this kind of organization has been lost, as tracks are now stacked and repeated across all sequences. Previously, one group of tracks would occupy bank A of the muted track, another would occupy bank B, another would occupy bank C... This was a nice feature for live music.

One feature that could help would be an option to add a marker to tracks, so that the MPCist could determine the order that certain tracks should occupy in each sequence (without necessarily changing their position). This would bring back the flexibility of having each sequence start with a different track, or with a different order of tracks, and would bring back the original way of using Track Mute. Or perhaps a checkbox in the settings, allowing the MPCist to choose to use MPC in "Producer" mode (where tracks are stacked and repeated across all sequences) or in "Live" mode (where MPC would operate in the MPC 2.15 model).

Personally, I'm stuck because in MPC 2.15 there is no Disk Streaming, I have to subdivide larger projects for live performance into 3 different projects (which is a delay on stage). In MPC 3.0, I can organize the whole set into a single project with Disk Streaming... But the losses I mentioned above make me feel like I'm using a limited machine in any version.

I actually prefer the way it works now.
I never got into the MPC workflow because it felt I have to force myself to be experimental.
It felt like a DAW but with too much thinking ahead and mentally exhausting to keep the linearity.
Now it's truly linear and I can use as a DAW.
Maybe I'm used to the Octatrack and the happy accident which generates ton of ideas, that's why I found too slow experiment with the MPC.
IMO the MPC require too much go back and forth to try things.
Simple things like changing the envelope of a keygroup required you to go in the menu, select program edit, make sure ALL is selected then go through tabs to finally edit the envelope and if I want to add a simple FX and go back to change the envelope I have to go through all that againfor something I can achieve super fast on the OT while also having the ability to do other thing with the sequencer.
I really can't justify all this time for a simple edit.

I'm still rocking JJOS2XL on MPC 1000 which i can take with me in a laptop bag.

Not sure why you guys keep causing yourself headaches because you are brainwashed to have the "NEWEST THING" so akai will release a new MPC every two years so that you keep wage slaving for the newest thing like a zombie consumer.

The old MPCs work just fine. I never understand what I am missing out on? Stems? AI doing the work for me and filter passing specific layers of a track?

If it's not broke, don't fix it. If my old 40 year old truck still runs great and i have no truck payments, why should i get a new one? To have bluetooth? No thanks. I'm all for innovation but you have to show me innovation instead of gimmicks and bugs and obsolecence.

I embrace change and new ideas. Keeps things fresh and innovative

Sense-A wrote:The old MPCs work just fine. I never understand what I am missing out on? Stems? AI doing the work for me and filter passing specific layers of a track?

They do work fine for some people, and equally the new MPCs have a lot of new options and features on offer (beyond 'stems') that appeal to a large majority of other people.

The reality is Akai are a business and will focus on a model that generates income for them now and in the future. People who prefer to stay on long discontinued, 16 year old hardware are clearly not their target audience.

They have likely made a mis-step with the unified track system as they misjudged how many people relied on aspects of the old system, but there's still time to remedy this while MPC3 is in beta.

MPC-Tutor wrote:

Sense-A wrote:The old MPCs work just fine. I never understand what I am missing out on? Stems? AI doing the work for me and filter passing specific layers of a track?

They do work fine for some people, and equally the new MPCs have a lot of new options and features on offer (beyond 'stems') that appeal to a large majority of other people.

The reality is Akai are a business and will focus on a model that generates income for them now and in the future. People who prefer to stay on long discontinued, 16 year old hardware are clearly not their target audience.

They have likely made a mis-step with the unified track system as they misjudged how many people relied on aspects of the old system, but there's still time to remedy this while MPC3 is in beta.

Exactly. They have responded to issues about track mutes then why not this as well? This is exactly why it is important to report these things while in Beta. They seem to be responding to the majority in these instances or of course feel free to stay on legacy. There is nothing wrong with that. In doing so do not expect support on 2 to be continued for very long after 3 is completed. That I can almost guarantee will not happen. That is part of the history that has NEVER changed with MPCs.

BDRAKE wrote:Exactly. They have responded to issues about track mutes then why not this as well? This is exactly why it is important to report these things while in Beta. They seem to be responding to the majority in these instances or of course feel free to stay on legacy. There is nothing wrong with that. In doing so do not expect support on 2 to be continued for very long after 3 is completed. That I can almost guarantee will not happen. That is part of the history that has NEVER changed with MPCs.

The dude is on the MPC1k with JJOS. So there no expected support Akai. Also, what the original Akai never did vs the Akai today isn't a good standard to use. The old Akai never released a public beta nor made so many different types of MPC all running the same OS.

I Believe JJ still puts out Updates and Bug Fixes. I check it every Blue Moon for my 2500

40Beatz wrote:I Believe JJ still puts out Updates and Bug Fixes. I check it every Blue Moon for my 2500

I meant to mention that. Akai need to rehire him. That's if he even wants to work with them again. The JJOS has been around for about 2 decades now.

B-Wise wrote:

40Beatz wrote:I Believe JJ still puts out Updates and Bug Fixes. I check it every Blue Moon for my 2500

I meant to mention that. Akai need to rehire him. That's if he even wants to work with them again. The JJOS has been around for about 2 decades now.

JJ need to get get back in the game of doing alternative OS cos his services are needed; or maybe a new JJ will arise from the ashes for the 2.15