I have to give it to Akai, they are pushing things forward!

^^^^
I have to agree. Even though I complain a lot (usually about the same 4 missing features), I make it work cos it's so damn fun and the workflow is on point.
I've had plenty of standalone machines. Roland, Korg etc.. The MC909 is probably the only one to cram everything in (Sampling, sequencer, synth and midi) and make it work like a DAW. This was back in 02. We had it all and yet people still moaned about it (tbf the big complaint was justified. You put sequences together to make a song, but there'd be a nano second drop out when the sequences changed so you made your song on one big sequence instead).
My point is, I've been doing work arounds with every single bit of hardware I've used. It makes you better, more creative. Sure it's frustrating sometimes, but I think we need to appreciate just how pretty damn good things are now for standalone production.

SuperKonquer wrote: You could literally just it use as a track recorder and live record in any time signatures you like.

Thank f**king god we don't have to in the future though. I have never had the ability to count the beats in a complex time signature while I'm playing it, and being able to change time signatures of the sequence is pretty much imperative to me not spending massive amounts of time figuring them out.

I'm glad Akai listened and are implementing time signatures in MPC in the future here. I'm glad they weren't swayed by people who didn't care and likely the bean counters who didn't think it was important.

IMO time signatures in a sequencer workstation like the MPC isn't an additional feature, it's not like it's another plugin or sample format, it's an integral part of music as a whole.

All these months of debates and some people still refuse to understand the concerns some of us have

It has nothing to do with new features etc. ITS. THE. WORKFLOW.

Part of what made an MPC what it was and how it impacted music was the sequence-track-program configuration. This isn’t hard to understand. People bought mpcs for that specific workflow.

I’m good on 2.X for now. But I know it won’t continue to be supported so any new features (that I really enjoy and am thankful for) won’t be available to the minority of us who want to keep the classic MPC workflow.

Why this is so offensive to some out there I’ll never understand

There's alot of non beat making going on here....

machinesworking wrote:IMO time signatures in a sequencer workstation like the MPC isn't an additional feature, it's not like it's another plugin or sample format, it's an integral part of music as a whole.

Bingo!
Time signatures shouldn't be seen as an adding on like Ring the Alram. People need to stop with the Akai simping for the lack of essential features being pointed out.

https://support.akaipro.com/en/support/solutions/articles/69000860746-akai-pro-mpc-series-changing-the-time-signature#:~:text=To%20do%20this%2C%20select%20the,number%20of%20a%20time%20signature).
Updated 2 days ago. Time signatures coming in next update for mpc3

DET1200 wrote:Updated 2 days ago. Time signatures coming in next update for mpc3

‘Upcoming update’ is (probably intentionally) open to interpretation, not necessarily next update imo.

MPC-Tutor wrote:

DET1200 wrote:Updated 2 days ago. Time signatures coming in next update for mpc3

‘Upcoming update’ is (probably intentionally) open to interpretation, not necessarily next update imo

Ahh sorry i must have thought it said "the" not "an" upcoming update.
Well at least they've acknowledged it.

They probably wouldn't announce it if they weren't serious about it. Seems to me they've woken up about trying to make the OS as good as possible and that they're actually listening to users to some extent. Maybe they've realized the MPC's may be able to compete seriously with workstations after all. A future hardware update on top of an ironed out OS 3+ with better CPU, more RAM and more physical control would probably persuade a considerable chunk of buyers in the market.

HUBA wrote:They probably wouldn't announce it if they weren't serious about it.

They've been serious about the Note Off bug for how long now?

J.O.BEATS wrote:All these months of debates and some people still refuse to understand the concerns some of us have

It has nothing to do with new features etc. ITS. THE. WORKFLOW.

Part of what made an MPC what it was and how it impacted music was the sequence-track-program configuration. This isn’t hard to understand. People bought mpcs for that specific workflow.

I’m good on 2.X for now. But I know it won’t continue to be supported so any new features (that I really enjoy and am thankful for) won’t be available to the minority of us who want to keep the classic MPC workflow.

Why this is so offensive to some out there I’ll never understand

They changed the core architecture of programs to accommodate the arranger and disk streaming, I think.
The concern is that it's gonna be more and more, it's quite clear they started from legacy MPC structure and they are moving to a Daw-like structure.
So MPC is not the advanced sampler that shaped music in the 90s, this thing is gonna be lost in the future.
Unfortunately that's understable.
The musicians are not the ones who shaped music with MPC in the 90s.
The experimental and pioneering side of music is relegated to a small niche, the vast majority of so called musicians rely heavily on ready made stuff, presets, libraries, autotuner and all this shit.
So it's quite easy to understand that if you want to make buckets of dollars, you have to adapt to that shi(f)t.
The direction of MPC is that and we cannot blame anyone for that, take it or not.
I have the feeling that the workflow will be changed more and more, the core structure will be tweaked more and more, until MPC will really become the groovebox for the masses, and it's gonna be a huge success.
Maybe, in 10 years or so, they will make a collaboration with IzoTope and put an AI that will create whole synth parts, beats, arrangements for you with just a click.
And at this point, MPC will be in every so called musician house of the world.

Straker wrote:

J.O.BEATS wrote:All these months of debates and some people still refuse to understand the concerns some of us have

It has nothing to do with new features etc. ITS. THE. WORKFLOW.

Part of what made an MPC what it was and how it impacted music was the sequence-track-program configuration. This isn’t hard to understand. People bought mpcs for that specific workflow.

I’m good on 2.X for now. But I know it won’t continue to be supported so any new features (that I really enjoy and am thankful for) won’t be available to the minority of us who want to keep the classic MPC workflow.

Why this is so offensive to some out there I’ll never understand

They changed the core architecture of programs to accommodate the arranger and disk streaming, I think.
The concern is that it's gonna be more and more, it's quite clear they started from legacy MPC structure and they are moving to a Daw-like structure.
So MPC is not the advanced sampler that shaped music in the 90s, this thing is gonna be lost in the future.
Unfortunately that's understable.
The musicians are not the ones who shaped music with MPC in the 90s.
The experimental and pioneering side of music is relegated to a small niche, the vast majority of so called musicians rely heavily on ready made stuff, presets, libraries, autotuner and all this shit.
So it's quite easy to understand that if you want to make buckets of dollars, you have to adapt to that shi(f)t.
The direction of MPC is that and we cannot blame anyone for that, take it or not.
I have the feeling that the workflow will be changed more and more, the core structure will be tweaked more and more, until MPC will really become the groovebox for the masses, and it's gonna be a huge success.
Maybe, in 10 years or so, they will make a collaboration with IzoTope and put an AI that will create whole synth parts, beats, arrangements for you with just a click.
And at this point, MPC will be in every so called musician of the world.

I think the natural course will be to try and compete in the workstation market while keeping some MPC aspects and try to find a balance between enough desired features and a sensible workflow, like any workstation manufacturer should. Doesn't have to mean dumbed down preset rompler machine exclusively. It's possible to offer both user segments a fair share if things were to be done cleverly and have a decent feature set without ruining the UE, but that takes some thinking and decision making so there has to be a will to put in some effort. Korg is facing a similar challenge if they're ever gonna release a successor to the Kronos.

Obviously advanced users will have to tolerate to have most of their niche features a bit more buried in the UI than what will be the case for the wider user group, but even advanced users will want or benefit from having the most often used features easily available at surface level at the expense of more rarely used stuff.

It can be done, and if the workstation will survive as a product, which I believe it will, the above is IMO the logical course of things.

@ HUBA

Yes of course it can be done, but it's a big challenge.
You see, the program structure has already been sacrificed, and that's not so appealing, to move into Daw-style direction.
I guess that, when they will face the hard choice, they will always sacrifice the legacy side of it.
Again, it's understandable, they need to sell, nothing wrong with it.
And if it took 7 years to bring the keygroups back to a 1998 level, I am not sure there will be more improvements with the sampler side in the near future.
Sample edit is still very basic and there is not much you can do with your samples.
I think it's just that the majority of people don't care much about samples.
I might be wrong, hopefully.
We need to understand this: we are old, we are not the marketing target of this new MPCs, things have changed.
MPC was glorious when there were people and bands like Orb, Orbital, FSOL, Massive Attack, Portishead.
Now it's a totally different story.
Music has changed, musicians have changed and MPC change accordingly.

Straker wrote:@ HUBA

Yes of course it can be done, but it's a big challenge.
You see, the program structure has already been sacrificed, and that's not so appealing, to move into Daw-style direction.
I guess that, when they will face the hard choice, they will always sacrifice the legacy side of it.
Again, it's understandable, they need to sell, nothing wrong with it.
And if it took 7 years to bring the keygroups back to a 1998 level, I am not sure there will be more improvements with the sampler side in the near future.
Sample edit is still very basic and there is not much you can do with your samples.
I think it's just that the majority of people don't care much about samples.
I might be wrong, hopefully.
We need to understand this: we are old, we are not the marketing target of this new MPCs, things have changed.
MPC was glorious when there were people and bands like Orb, Orbital, FSOL, Massive Attack, Portishead.
Now it's a totally different story.
Music has changed, musicians have changed and Akai changed accordingly.

I understand your concern but I don't really buy that advanced users or users that are into an effective workflow is something of the past. There will always be creative people around and they will likely want to both scratch below the surface of things and demand a decent workflow.

I think part of the problem is the introduction of the touchscreen has made every manufacturer tempted to use it as a substitute for a properly thought through UI including physical knobs, sliders and buttons. This is likely a fad that would naturally fade but another big part of the problem is that we seem to be stuck with only a few large companies being able to create workstations at least for the time being, so the fad will likely fade much slower than it would otherwise.

I've said this before but even though it's from early days of the touchscreen, the V-synth really nailed it IMO in terms of exploiting its actual advantages while leaving everything else for physical control. Its workflow is speedy and comfortable and I never find myself irritated about having to use the touch screen because anytime it's the only way of doing a task it's for good reasons because the alternative would be a more clumsy solution. Hopefully this is how touchscreens will be used in the coming years. For all I know it's started to happen already.

B-Wise wrote:

HUBA wrote:They probably wouldn't announce it if they weren't serious about it.

They've been serious about the Note Off bug for how long now?

I know but did they announce it in update notes before that they were on the case and that they intended to fix it within the next update?