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

HUBA wrote: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?

note off bug was first mentioned in the MPC 2.11.9 release notes. I think that's ten subsequent 2.x releases, and three public 3.x releases.

In some cases, MIDI note-off messages can be sent to the wrong MIDI channel when received from multiple sources simultaneously.

HUBA wrote:

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.

I am ok with the touchcreen and actually I like how MPC is organized with touchscreen and qlinks, it's fast enough.
I have been using many Vsynths also, especially Novation and Ms2000, now I am having a lot of fun with Opx4, my Minifreak is taking dust after I started using opx4.
If it was not for Air, I would have sold my MPC.
I am liking their fx a lot, the more I use them, the more I find them good, you have to understand what each parameter does, they are really well done.
So basically I am ok with just Opx4, my own samples and Air fx, I don't use the other stuff of MPC.
I think it's a device with many different tools and everyone can use what it suits better to its music.
But the sampler side is still static, sometimes I trigger some sample and I wish I could do something with it, some feature I could assign to a qlink to move and evolve the sample, but I can just do it with fx.
I know, new MPCs have never been targeted as advanced samplers, they were marketed as Daw in a box since day one.

MPC-Tutor wrote:

HUBA wrote: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?

note off bug was first mentioned in the MPC 2.11.9 release notes. I think that's ten subsequent 2.x releases, and three public 3.x releases.

In some cases, MIDI note-off messages can be sent to the wrong MIDI channel when received from multiple sources simultaneously.

Jesus.. Well in that case I guess my interpretation was somewhat optimistic. I've been on an early OS version for ages so haven't paid close attention. Hopefully they get their s#it together soon

Straker wrote:the sampler side is still static, sometimes I trigger some sample and I wish I could do something with it, some feature I could assign to a qlink to move and evolve the sample, but I can just do it with fx.

Agreed. Thankfully they seem to have taken a renewed interest in the sample side of things. Hopefully that will continue

This is from the Release Notes:

Two key areas—Time Signature Support and the MIDI Note Off issue—have been at the forefront of your input. Please rest assured that we are actively working to address these concerns in a future update.

Logically they can't speculate on if it gets addressed in months or years, but besides bugs and any new features they already had planned it sounds like they're well aware of what end users want.

The Programs and separate from Tracks issue is another thing entirely, I have no idea if that is incongruent with their more editable arranger window? but it seems like that's the main problem, otherwise they could have had a compromise solution like timing programs to the tracks until you do otherwise, hit a button or something etc. Obviously though I think the same thing applies, if I cared about it as much as some of you do I would write support and join the beta team to start threads about it. This isn't an Akai run forum though, so it's likely the last place besides Gearspace Akai looks for feedback.

HUBA wrote:Jesus.. Well in that case I guess my interpretation was somewhat optimistic. I've been on an early OS version for ages so haven't paid close attention. Hopefully they get their s#it together soon

Welcome to the wack ass after party.

machinesworking wrote:The Programs and separate from Tracks issue is another thing entirely, I have no idea if that is incongruent with their more editable arranger window? but it seems like that's the main problem, otherwise they could have had a compromise solution like timing programs to the tracks until you do otherwise, hit a button or something etc. Obviously though I think the same thing applies, if I cared about it as much as some of you do I would write support and join the beta team to start threads about it. This isn't an Akai run forum though, so it's likely the last place besides Gearspace Akai looks for feedback.

I wonder why they can't do it like the MPC1k/2500 with JJOS where you could assign a PC# to each program & the track, so on a different seqs, tracks with different programs automatically switch to the PC# that you set for that track.

Basically you had a menu to change the program that you can change whlie after you press play & a menu to set the PC# that would play whatever program has that PC# after you press play.

B-Wise wrote:I wonder why they can't do it like the MPC1k/2500 with JJOS where you could assign a PC# to each program & the track, so on a different seqs, tracks with different programs automatically switch to the PC# that you set for that track.

Basically you had a menu to change the program that you can change whlie after you press play & a menu to set the PC# that would play whatever program has that PC# after you press play.

You mean Program Change messages right? That would be cool, because one thing that comes to mind with 3 is that it's not easy to navigate a ten plus song set for live performances if every track in the set is unique and not routed to the same outs and mixing positions etc. That IMO was/is the biggest advantage of Programs being separate from tracks, each Sequence could be its own song with different drumsets for each but all routed to the same outs, FX chains etc. Same with keygroups etc.

machinesworking wrote:

B-Wise wrote:I wonder why they can't do it like the MPC1k/2500 with JJOS where you could assign a PC# to each program & the track, so on a different seqs, tracks with different programs automatically switch to the PC# that you set for that track.

Basically you had a menu to change the program that you can change whlie after you press play & a menu to set the PC# that would play whatever program has that PC# after you press play.

You mean Program Change messages right? That would be cool, because one thing that comes to mind with 3 is that it's not easy to navigate a ten plus song set for live performances if every track in the set is unique and not routed to the same outs and mixing positions etc. That IMO was/is the biggest advantage of Programs being separate from tracks, each Sequence could be its own song with different drumsets for each but all routed to the same outs, FX chains etc. Same with keygroups etc.

Yes, PC=Program Change.

I don't get how MPC3 program style would prevent you from using the same outs? Do you mean the same tracks on different seqs?

Man MPC OS 3 sounds more confusing the more I read about it. If someone could link to some post/text that explains the main differences between 2 and 3, particularly in how programs and tracks now are handled or any other major changes I should be aware of then that would be swell.

HUBA wrote:Man MPC OS 3 sounds more confusing the more I read about it. If someone could link to some post/text that explains the main differences between 2 and 3, particularly in how programs and tracks now are handled or any other major changes I should be aware of then that would be swell.

It's really not more confusing, not at all IMHO. Obviously there's a bit of a learning curve if all you've ever used is 2.x, but 3.4 - to new users - is far less confusing than 2.x, IMHO. The difference between Programs on 3.4+ is that they are now 1:1 track relation. They work just like any other "plugin" would work in a typical desktop DAW - you assign the instrument to a track, and it occupies that track (hence 1:1 track relation). In 2.x, a single Program could have as many tracks as you want assigned to it, and this removal has been criticized by a lot of classic MPC-heads as moving backwards.

In 3.4, if you want multiple tracks assigned to a single Program, you have to create a separate MIDI track and assign that MIDI track to control said Program. Not really hard to conceptualize IMHO.

To Add to that. It seems like the Content from multiple Programs are still loaded into memory. You just have to Map out individual samples to the pads across all additional Tracks (Kinda Tedious but doable)

Or just copy the track!?

HUBA wrote:Man MPC OS 3 sounds more confusing the more I read about it. If someone could link to some post/text that explains the main differences between 2 and 3, particularly in how programs and tracks now are handled or any other major changes I should be aware of then that would be swell.

They adopted the Force way of handling tracks & programs. Now on MPC3, the drum/keygroup programs are tied to the track & are independent. Meaning, two drum tracks can't have the same name, even if you copy it.

Also both tracks will share the same samples from the sample pool, but their track/program parameters edits will independent. Before you could have different tracks share the same program quickly make edits to all the samples any track that have the program. On M3 if you have copies of the same program on different tracks like a kick track & snare track, the edits you make for snare on the kick track won't carry over to the snare sample on the snare track.

You'll have figure out how you want to work with this. There's multiple workarounds:

1-Have a main drum track & make dummy drum tracks & use the MIDI Send option on each of them to go to the main drum track. Now you can either play out your pattern on the main track & then copy each pad onto their own dummy track. This way will work better for finger drummers. Or you can play/rec each part from the dummy track, but with either case you need to make edits to samples on the main track.

2-Make a drum track for each sound & leave all the other pad blank it as a keygroup where each pad is the same sample but edited in whatever way you want.

3-Make copies of a program with & name each track as the sound it use & just ignore the other pads & or, use them & rec them on that track & leave it like that or copy it to the track was set up for that pad/sample then delete it on the track you first recorded it to.

There are probably more workarounds & I know there one I know but can't remember. I normally use 1st option on the Force. Hopefully this makes sense & here's a video that breaks some of it down on MPC3:

EnochLight wrote:
In 3.4, if you want multiple tracks assigned to a single Program, you have to create a separate MIDI track and assign that MIDI track to control said Program. Not really hard to conceptualize IMHO.

To make it even simpler when using drum tracks, you can use separate drum tracks instead of MIDI tracks to MIDI-Send to the main track.