Support and discussion for all of Akai’s modern standalone MPCs including the MPC X / X SE, MPC Live 1, 2 & 3, MPC One / One+, MPC Key 37/61.
User avatar
By Monotremata Fri Jan 31, 2025 5:09 pm
Straker wrote:Problematic because bad implemented.
Do you guys have worked with LFOs before?
An LFO per voice is a really weird idea.


On my E6400, AND my S3000XL, each 'voice' layer in a patch gets its own full architecture. That means its own filter, its own LFO's, its own envelopes, its own mod matrix, etc.. How is that 'weird' when it was actually a fairly standard thing on 'higher end' devices. Ever seen the layout in something like Halion?

If you had to cut costs, you went with one LFO for the whole thing. More than a few analog poly synths literally had the same architecture for each and every voice. That means 1 (maybe 2) VCO, a VCF, a VCA, LFOs, etc, for EACH 'voice' or note you could play. That's kinda part of that whole 'Why does this thing sound different every time I play it' aspect of analog tech..

I mean I get it, I was the vocal one about how the sampler sucked the last few years but, are you sure you know what exactly you are arguing for or against at this point?
By Straker Fri Jan 31, 2025 5:26 pm
Monotremata wrote:
Straker wrote:Problematic because bad implemented.
Do you guys have worked with LFOs before?
An LFO per voice is a really weird idea.


On my E6400, AND my S3000XL, each 'voice' layer in a patch gets its own full architecture. That means its own filter, its own LFO's, its own envelopes, its own mod matrix, etc.. How is that 'weird' when it was actually a fairly standard thing on 'higher end' devices. Ever seen the layout in something like Halion?

If you had to cut costs, you went with one LFO for the whole thing. More than a few analog poly synths literally had the same architecture for each and every voice. That means 1 (maybe 2) VCO, a VCF, a VCA, LFOs, etc, for EACH 'voice' or note you could play. That's kinda part of that whole 'Why does this thing sound different every time I play it' aspect of analog tech..

I mean I get it, I was the vocal one about how the sampler sucked the last few years but, are you sure you know what exactly you are arguing for or against at this point?

Well, Arturia Minifreak has one free running LFO, and an "advanced" mod matrix.
It doesn't make sense to me to have a Global LFO that starts again each time you play a note, that's not global and, as things stand, it's all very uncomfortable.
Global means keeping all in sync, as I can do with Minifreak.
BTW, in MF mod matrix you can also use the shape and timbre of the oscillator as a target, which again I would call an "advanced" feature.
There is nothing like that here.
No sample start/end point, nothing you can do with the source sample (as with oscillator in MF).
So it's not an advanced mod matrix.
Arturia, Elektron, Deluge have advanced mod matrix.
By John Schaefer Fri Jan 31, 2025 5:51 pm
Monotremata wrote:
Straker wrote:Problematic because bad implemented.
Do you guys have worked with LFOs before?
An LFO per voice is a really weird idea.


On my E6400, AND my S3000XL, each 'voice' layer in a patch gets its own full architecture. That means its own filter, its own LFO's, its own envelopes, its own mod matrix, etc.. How is that 'weird' when it was actually a fairly standard thing on 'higher end' devices. Ever seen the layout in something like Halion?

If you had to cut costs, you went with one LFO for the whole thing. More than a few analog poly synths literally had the same architecture for each and every voice. That means 1 (maybe 2) VCO, a VCF, a VCA, LFOs, etc, for EACH 'voice' or note you could play. That's kinda part of that whole 'Why does this thing sound different every time I play it' aspect of analog tech..

I mean I get it, I was the vocal one about how the sampler sucked the last few years but, are you sure you know what exactly you are arguing for or against at this point?


Can we not all agree at this point that the ideal would be our MPC instruments having access to a polyphonic LFO per voice for those who want that kind of deep sound design, AND access to a Reset-optional GlobalLFO that the instrument can tap into for unified modulation like filter sweeps?

That way no-one is losing out.

Unfortunately, and it's the reason why people are still grumbling, this is not in fact what Akai delivered with the new OS.
User avatar
By Polynominal Fri Jan 31, 2025 8:18 pm
Just a lil' history lesson, just ignore if not interested, just for those who don't know what samplers were capable of a while ago vs. what hardware manufacturers give us today.

The Ensoniq ASR-10 (1992) emerged as a groundbreaking sampler, offering advanced synthesis capabilities, per-voice modulation, and real-time effect control that surpass many modern hardware samplers. This instrument seamlessly blended sampling and synthesis, providing features that remain unparalleled today.

The ASR-10 boasted a sophisticated modulation system with per-voice control. Each of its 31 voices was equipped with three DAHDSR envelopes, independently shaping pitch, filter, and amplitude. These envelopes extended beyond the standard ADSR design by incorporating delay and hold stages, allowing for precise modulation over time. This design enabled detailed shaping of individual sample playback, granting the flexibility of a full synthesizer.

Each voice also featured three independent LFOs, totaling up to 93 simultaneous LFOs when all voices (31) were active. These LFOs offered sine, square, triangle, saw, and random (sample & hold) waveforms, which could modulate pitch, filter, and amplitude. Because modulation was applied per voice rather than per track, every note triggered its own independent modulation cycle. Modulation sources included velocity, aftertouch, modwheel, key tracking, and MIDI CCs, all assignable dynamically. This level of control facilitated the creation of evolving, expressive sounds that responded to playing dynamics in a way that few modern hardware samplers allow.

The sampling engine supported 16-bit, 44.1 kHz sampling, along with real-time resampling and time-stretching. A standout feature was Transwave Synthesis, an early wavetable-like method enabling dynamic looping of waveform segments. This approach treated samples not just as static recordings but as manipulable oscillator waveforms within a synthesizer framework. Combined with velocity-based layering, key zones, and dynamic crossfading, the ASR-10 allowed for highly expressive and complex sample-based sound design.

A notable aspect of the ASR-10 was its ability to modulate effects in real time, a feature often lacking in modern hardware samplers. The Ensoniq Signal Processor (ESP) was integrated directly into the synthesis engine, allowing effects to be treated as part of the sound design rather than as simple inserts. Effects such as reverb, chorus, flanger, phaser, distortion, delay, and a vocoder could be modulated dynamically.

LFOs could control effect depth and speed, creating rhythmic modulation of delay times or chorus movement. Why don't we get this today???

Velocity could influence effect send levels, meaning louder notes could push more signal into a reverb or distortion, enhancing dynamic expression.

Aftertouch could modify effect parameters in real time, such as increasing phaser depth, extending reverb tails, or sweeping a filter within the effects engine.

DAHDSR envelopes could shape how effects evolved, allowing for delayed fade-ins of a flanger or gradual increases in distortion over time.

The modwheel could crossfade between different effect settings, effectively morphing between dry and wet sounds or switching between different effect styles.

And so forth.

Unlike modern hardware samplers like the Akai MPC series or the Elektron Octatrack, which rely on track-based modulation, the ASR-10 applied all modulation on a per-voice basis. The Octatrack, for example, offers three LFOs per track, but all notes within a track share the same modulation settings. In contrast, the ASR-10 assigned each note its own independent set of three LFOs and three DAHDSR envelopes, allowing each note in a chord to exhibit completely different modulation behavior.

This per-voice approach extended to its effects engine as well. While most modern hardware samplers treat effects as global sends or master inserts, the ASR-10 allowed effects to be modulated individually per note.

This meant each played sound could have a unique effect response based on its velocity, envelope settings, or modulation sources. Consequently, it was possible to create sounds where each note had a different delay time, reverb amount, or modulation depth, a level of control nearly impossible on most modern samplers.

Even after more than 30 years, the ASR-10 remains one of the most advanced samplers ever made in terms of true synthesis integration, per-voice modulation, and real-time effect processing. While modern hardware samplers focus on workflow and sequencing, the ASR-10 was designed as an instrument where sampling and synthesis were deeply connected, offering a level of sound design flexibility that many newer devices still don’t match.

That is why I'm still rockin' that beast in my rack, feeding my modern MPC what it spits out.
User avatar
By EnochLight Fri Jan 31, 2025 8:29 pm
I loved my ASR-10. Had the SCSI CD-ROM accessory, too. One of my favorite libraries with The Art of Transwaves, which relied on some of the modulation features described above. But I also hated my ASR-10, as the extremely limited memory always became a problem in virtually every production we worked on, and I lost more than a few hours of work when it would randomly crash. Ensoniq's OS crashiness was legendary, and anyone who says it wasn't a thing is either lying or never owned one. And yeah, those limitations were part of its charm, but after the arrival of Reason 1.0 back in 2000, I listed my ASR-10 on eBay and sold it as well as the SCSI-CD ROM. Sort of wish I kept it, but those floppy discs were a major PITA, and components were becoming extremely rare for the ASR-10 back in the early 2000's. Have no idea what their availability is now.

That said, we've heard all this before: vintage samplers were far better samplers. And indeed, most were! But they also didn't offer a fraction of the features that platforms like the current-gen MPC/Force offer in addition to being a sampler, nor did it run a literal computer operating system (and no, the ASR-series OS was nothing like the Linux OS that MPC runs on top of). Nor did it have (virtually) unlimited storage. I mean, we could make a list a mile long of things vintage gear like the ASR-10 was missing compared to modern gear.

It's all a trade-off. Music production has changed.
Last edited by EnochLight on Fri Jan 31, 2025 8:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
By Masi Fri Jan 31, 2025 8:31 pm
Now that I've tried out the global LFO I don't quite get why its current behaviour is so horrible.

In my experiments the LFO retriggers only for the first NEW keypress and not ANY as I have assumed. So if you want a vibrato using a sine it will always start with the rising part of the sine wave. Which is probably useful.

In other situations a free running LFO might deliver more interesting results.

What I miss more is a phase control. I'm fine with steppings of 0, 90, 180 and 270 degree.

Anyway the global LFO is IMHO not so "very broken" that it'll overshadow all the cool things that have been added to the keygroups.