Somebody should make a computer program that emulates...

what was said above but instead of exporting to wav, how about having the ability to rewire into the DAW. Propellerheads offers free rewire development kits and issues the license for free.

read up on it at www.propellerheads.se and follow the links to rewire

now that would be hot.

sparq wrote:what was said above but instead of exporting to wav, how about having the ability to rewire into the DAW. Propellerheads offers free rewire development kits and issues the license for free.

read up on it at www.propellerheads.se and follow the links to rewire

now that would be hot.

That would be freakin sick. But won't it take a long time develop?

sparq wrote:what was said above but instead of exporting to wav, how about having the ability to rewire into the DAW. Propellerheads offers free rewire development kits and issues the license for free.

read up on it at www.propellerheads.se and follow the links to rewire

now that would be hot.

yeah that would definitely be hot. i've been impressed with rewire ever since it was first developed, and considering how well it was implemented, i knew from day one that it would catch on with all the other software developers. rewire sure came a long way.

orjanbeats wrote:

Antonym wrote:exactly. you should just be able to make a project folder w/ all your pgms, sounds and seqs. the pc program should just give you an option of "rendering each track to file." this would be particularly usefull for those of us who turn our songs into 1 big sequence.

rendering each track to file would be like doing it in acid. that'd be so damn cool. it'd save SO much time for tracking stuff out, too...it really only makes sense.

no need to emulate the effects or anything like that. just for tracking. it'd be so sweet.

You read my mind!

... Or probably you just read my post But this is exactly what I had in mind, it doesn't have to emulate the entire OS, sorry that I formulated it a bit bad. When it comes to legal stuff: does anybody know if the writer of the Bluebox program had any legal issues with Akai?

But anywayz, jwalgran, let's say you made a program that could render each track to file:

- when you have first made the program, would it take much efforts to code a mac version as well?
- how much would you charge for the program?

Personally, I think it would be quite difficult to do it right without hacking the mpc os and stealing their code.

That's because, you want the filters, the effects, envelopes and the sample pitching algorithms to sound the same as the mpc, right?

To do that you need to use the _same_ dsp algorithms they are using, which is hard to figure out without straight up hacking their code.

So probably a homebrew version would have 'a different sound' or else be illegal.

sleepersriddle wrote:

orjanbeats wrote:

Antonym wrote:exactly. you should just be able to make a project folder w/ all your pgms, sounds and seqs. the pc program should just give you an option of "rendering each track to file." this would be particularly usefull for those of us who turn our songs into 1 big sequence.

rendering each track to file would be like doing it in acid. that'd be so damn cool. it'd save SO much time for tracking stuff out, too...it really only makes sense.

no need to emulate the effects or anything like that. just for tracking. it'd be so sweet.

You read my mind!

... Or probably you just read my post But this is exactly what I had in mind, it doesn't have to emulate the entire OS, sorry that I formulated it a bit bad. When it comes to legal stuff: does anybody know if the writer of the Bluebox program had any legal issues with Akai?

But anywayz, jwalgran, let's say you made a program that could render each track to file:

- when you have first made the program, would it take much efforts to code a mac version as well?
- how much would you charge for the program?

Personally, I think it would be quite difficult to do it right without hacking the mpc os and stealing their code.

That's because, you want the filters, the effects, envelopes and the sample pitching algorithms to sound the same as the mpc, right?

To do that you need to use the _same_ dsp algorithms they are using, which is hard to figure out without straight up hacking their code.

So probably a homebrew version would have 'a different sound' or else be illegal.

Yeah but as you read, the program doesn't have to have any effects, just the "render track to .wav file" function.

sleepersriddle wrote:

orjanbeats wrote:

Antonym wrote:exactly. you should just be able to make a project folder w/ all your pgms, sounds and seqs. the pc program should just give you an option of "rendering each track to file." this would be particularly usefull for those of us who turn our songs into 1 big sequence.

rendering each track to file would be like doing it in acid. that'd be so damn cool. it'd save SO much time for tracking stuff out, too...it really only makes sense.

no need to emulate the effects or anything like that. just for tracking. it'd be so sweet.

You read my mind!

... Or probably you just read my post But this is exactly what I had in mind, it doesn't have to emulate the entire OS, sorry that I formulated it a bit bad. When it comes to legal stuff: does anybody know if the writer of the Bluebox program had any legal issues with Akai?

But anywayz, jwalgran, let's say you made a program that could render each track to file:

- when you have first made the program, would it take much efforts to code a mac version as well?
- how much would you charge for the program?

Personally, I think it would be quite difficult to do it right without hacking the mpc os and stealing their code.

That's because, you want the filters, the effects, envelopes and the sample pitching algorithms to sound the same as the mpc, right?

To do that you need to use the _same_ dsp algorithms they are using, which is hard to figure out without straight up hacking their code.

So probably a homebrew version would have 'a different sound' or else be illegal.

if i'm not mistaken, it's all midi notes and wavs. the thing that i do agreen with you (to a point) is the actual sequence. but then again, that can be circumvented because that's just timing data. if a program can be written to create files that the mpc can understand (ie. bluebox and pad187) then i don't see where this would be a problem.

So probably a homebrew version would have 'a different sound' or else be illegal.

but if it is a problem, i'd opt for illegal

Antonym, I hadn't thought about the straight renderer. That's a pretty cool idea. It sounds like a separate, smaller program than the one I thought up. It shouldn't be that hard either. Food for thought.

What I was envisioning was more of an emulator, so that people without an MPC could get a close approximation to run on their 'puter. The RS-16x copies some of the functions, but not the workflow. That's what I'm after.

sleepersriddle brought up a good point when he mentioned needing to emulate the DSP if you were going to 100% clone the MPC in software. That's a huge job that I'm not interested in (and borders on IP theft). I was thinking more along the lines of building in a delay, a verb, and a compressor that have the same parameters and similar sound.

It's a big project. Not sure if it'll see the light of day.

jwalgran wrote:Antonym, I hadn't thought about the straight renderer. That's a pretty cool idea. It sounds like a separate, smaller program than the one I thought up. It shouldn't be that hard either. Food for thought.

What I was envisioning was more of an emulator, so that people without an MPC could get a close approximation to run on their 'puter. The RS-16x copies some of the functions, but not the workflow. That's what I'm after.

sleepersriddle brought up a good point when he mentioned needing to emulate the DSP if you were going to 100% clone the MPC in software. That's a huge job that I'm not interested in (and borders on IP theft). I was thinking more along the lines of building in a delay, a verb, and a compressor that have the same parameters and similar sound.

It's a big project. Not sure if it'll see the light of day.

Yes, but if you just forget about all DSP effects and stuff, and only concentrate on the "render track to wav file" function. How long will it take to make? And when you first have the program coded, will it take much extra efforts to code a mac version as well? And how much will you charge for the program?

peace

orjanbeats, it would be for Mac first. I'm a Mac guy. It's just pie in the sky now. No idea on timetable or compensation. Sounds like there is a need, though.

jwalgran wrote:orjanbeats, it would be for Mac first. I'm a Mac guy. It's just pie in the sky now. No idea on timetable or compensation. Sounds like there is a need, though.

1 more question: will it be for PPC or UB?

If this should be realized the filters, envelopes, the Q-link parameters and preferably the LFO must most certainly be simulated very closely.
Just throwing in the raw samples, tracking them down according to sequence and then try to do the filtering and anveloping in the DAW will be so much more time consuming than just record them track by track. And you´ll never come near sound of the MPC.
Who here isn´t filtering, applying envelopes and messes with real time manipulations while composing? If not these functions are copied with minute care you´ll be working blind on the MPC, not knowing how it will sound before you run your files through the application.
I´m not trying to put your spirits down, but this seems like a too large project to ever be realized, but it would be fun if someone proved me wrong.

orjanbeats wrote:

Antonym wrote:exactly. you should just be able to make a project folder w/ all your pgms, sounds and seqs. the pc program should just give you an option of "rendering each track to file." this would be particularly usefull for those of us who turn our songs into 1 big sequence.

rendering each track to file would be like doing it in acid. that'd be so damn cool. it'd save SO much time for tracking stuff out, too...it really only makes sense.

no need to emulate the effects or anything like that. just for tracking. it'd be so sweet.

You read my mind!

... Or probably you just read my post But this is exactly what I had in mind, it doesn't have to emulate the entire OS, sorry that I formulated it a bit bad. When it comes to legal stuff: does anybody know if the writer of the Bluebox program had any legal issues with Akai?

But anywayz, jwalgran, let's say you made a program that could render each track to file:

- when you have first made the program, would it take much efforts to code a mac version as well?
- how much would you charge for the program?

Blubox is free,and aexis takes donations, if you charge make it affordable say like $29.00.

man if this were done, i'd pay more than that out of sheer principle. i'd like...make a bounty on it or something.

sparq wrote:what was said above but instead of exporting to wav, how about having the ability to rewire into the DAW. Propellerheads offers free rewire development kits and issues the license for free.

read up on it at www.propellerheads.se and follow the links to rewire

now that would be hot.

Great idea, but Akai would have to be willing to put Rewire code into the OS. Rewire functionality has to be coded into any program that intends to be compatible with it as a slave or master.

This problem is not uncommon for folks using midi hardware devices with modern recording equipment. A lot of folks won't even track thier synths. They simply use a midi control track, or send out midi-timecode (not the same as mid-clock) and the synths/samplers run along side the recorded tracks in sync. Why even commmit a synth/sampler to a track when you could edit your tracks all the way until mixdown time? Obviously, if you want to apply internal FX from your DAW, then you will have to commit to a track. But you could potentially go back and re-record the midi performance again if neccessary. But a big advantage to not rendering is the you're using the output of the synth/sampler during the mix instead of the output of a recorded track. In most cases this will yield much better sonic results.

People like Access (the makers of the mighty Virus) have started to integrate plug-in technology with thier synths like the "TI" which stands for total integration. So maybe AKAi will see the advantages of implementing these same kind of features for MPC units in the future.