Loop issue in JJ OS

Here's a small thing:

If I have say a 6 bar sequence, but want to set the loop to play around the last two bars, the play/start function will not let me play the sequence from the begininng.

I want the sequence to start at bar one, play through to the end of bar 6, and then loop back to bar 5 and play round those two bars...

However, if I hit play/start... it just begins at the loop start point, bar 5, rather than the begining of the sequence. I can manually tap the locator buttons back to the start and then press play, but it's a bit annoying.

What am I missing?

J

jonathanpduffy wrote:Here's a small thing:

If I have say a 6 bar sequence, but want to set the loop to play around the last two bars, the play/start function will not let me play the sequence from the begininng.

I want the sequence to start at bar one, play through to the end of bar 6, and then loop back to bar 5 and play round those two bars...

However, if I hit play/start... it just begins at the loop start point, bar 5, rather than the begining of the sequence. I can manually tap the locator buttons back to the start and then press play, but it's a bit annoying.

What am I missing?

J

Nothing, it has always worked wrong.
I tried to explain it to JJ but he didn't fully understand how it was supposed to work based on the earlier MPC's.
The only solution you currently have is to chop up your sequence.

just make a 6 bar sequence and then make a two bar sequence.

pspsounds wrote:just make a 6 bar sequence and then make a two bar sequence.

Still doesn't change the fact that feature is broke based on how MPC's work.

"However, if I hit play/start... it just begins at the loop start point, bar 5"

I'm lost. If you programmed your beat to be a six bar sequence, then it's gonna play bar-1 to bar-6 exactly how you programmed it. If you want the loop to start wherever, then you have to program the sequence how you need it to be done. If I make a 6/8/10/etc bar sequence but then in my mind I want it to start on the 3rd bar, I'll reprogram the beat to start that way. The MPC can't read minds. It does wheat you tell it to do. Maybe I'm wrong tho.. I'm still on the 5.11 version. I can't keep up with the updates, so it may be a bug on the newer os for all i know.

roxstar wrote:"However, if I hit play/start... it just begins at the loop start point, bar 5"

I'm lost. If you programmed your beat to be a six bar sequence, then it's gonna play bar-1 to bar-6 exactly how you programmed it. If you want the loop to start wherever, then you have to program the sequence how you need it to be done. If I make a 6/8/10/etc bar sequence but then in my mind I want it to start on the 3rd bar, I'll reprogram the beat to start that way. The MPC can't read minds. It does wheat you tell it to do. Maybe I'm wrong tho.. I'm still on the 5.11 version. I can't keep up with the updates, so it may be a bug on the newer os for all i know.

Have you ever used any other MPC?
One of the cool things about the MPC was that the sequence would play through 1 complete cycle then only loop the bars you wanted instead of playing the entire sequence again.
JJ OS broke this feature from day one.
In other words MPC could go
BAR 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8 the just loop bars 7-8-7-8-7-8 until you select another sequence
on JJ the selection that would give you the above on previous MPC's on JJ would simply give you 7-8-7-8-7-8, it doesn't play the sequence first it only plays the looped part of the sequence.
That feature was really really critical on the MPC60 since the samples couldn't be looped.

you can easily let the sequence start on 001.01.01

press "go to" and the button right of it (start/<<) at the same time
and then press play.

Still not the same function.
Both the Akai OS and the JJ OS do it the same way, but it's not how MPC's work.
There is only one work around and it is to chop your sequence up.
Makes for a larger sequence and some additional repetitive work.
It can be a problem with carryover notes so you may have to edit them or try second sequence function.
Still can't seem to understand why Akai broke so much in it's attempt to improve.
The 2500 should have been a progression of the xl not a nip tuck.

Still can't seem to understand why Akai broke so much in it's attempt to improve.
The 2500 should have been a progression of the xl not a nip tuck.

I don't believe the programmers that worked on the XL worked on the 2500. If they did, vital features on the XL would have been built upon instead of being removed. Although the MPC 2500 has dozens of improvments over the 2000XL and 3000, I would have prefered that all the features of the 2000XL and 3000 were included in the 2500...which I have begged for from the start.

"Have you ever used any other MPC?"

I guess not. I just use mine to make regular beats I guess. I do exactly what your saying, but I put it into the machine how I want it to play. I did have the XL for about 6 years before getting the 2500 tho, but I still never did what your trying to do.

I'm finding all of this fascinating...mainly because I came from software only (Live, Reason & Guru) a few years ago...to the true joy of the MPC 60, a move which totally changed my workflow and funflow... I only recently moved to an MPC 2500, which doesn't have the Old School charisma of the 60, but can do so much more... I don't miss features on the 2000XL because I never had one, but I am beginning to pick up that many of you do!

The JJ OS works well for me...perhaps because I don't know what I'm missing.

I do hold out some hope for a new/updated Akai/JJ OS... if you read the forums, it seems as if something official/semi official is bubbling under there...either we find that we've been paying beta testers for the 'new' Akai OS courtesy of JJ (which would be almost fine if it all works!) or that there really is something sexy coming from Akai as an OS alternative...

I still feel what I've got is amazing, and only occasionally do I come up against something that feels 'stupid'...like this sequence issue, and the fact that I can't apply different attack, decayand filter settings to layers.. (though I know I can have 'simult pads'...

J

jahrome wrote:

Still can't seem to understand why Akai broke so much in it's attempt to improve.
The 2500 should have been a progression of the xl not a nip tuck.

I don't believe the programmers that worked on the XL worked on the 2500. If they did, vital features on the XL would have been built upon instead of being removed. Although the MPC 2500 has dozens of improvments over the 2000XL and 3000, I would have prefered that all the features of the 2000XL and 3000 were included in the 2500...which I have begged for from the start.

I would agree with the programmers being different, certain things just disconnect compared to previous MPC's.
Still it's funny because the 2500 is a good box because of the improvements, but would have been a great box if the existing features could have followed through.
Still even the Akai OS version was enough for me to put my 3k and XL away.
Also I was one of the original haters of JJ's OS but Akai just never responded to issues and complaints.
Be it JJ, Akai or even Roland I will go with who ever gives the best OS for the 2500, just too much power in that box to not make the most of it.

THE ADVERSARY wrote:

jahrome wrote:

Still can't seem to understand why Akai broke so much in it's attempt to improve.
The 2500 should have been a progression of the xl not a nip tuck.

I don't believe the programmers that worked on the XL worked on the 2500. If they did, vital features on the XL would have been built upon instead of being removed. Although the MPC 2500 has dozens of improvments over the 2000XL and 3000, I would have prefered that all the features of the 2000XL and 3000 were included in the 2500...which I have begged for from the start.

I would agree with the programmers being different, certain things just disconnect compared to previous MPC's.
Still it's funny because the 2500 is a good box because of the improvements, but would have been a great box if the existing features could have followed through.
Still even the Akai OS version was enough for me to put my 3k and XL away.
Also I was one of the original haters of JJ's OS but Akai just never responded to issues and complaints.
Be it JJ, Akai or even Roland I will go with who ever gives the best OS for the 2500, just too much power in that box to not make the most of it.

Good example cre8tive.

Ensoniq had some plans for the X but the buy-out killed it.
Still I like my X, I pretty much use it for my 2500 sounds.
I work in the 2500 then resample the sounds into the X process them, tweak them and then resample them in the X and load the wav into the 2500.
It gives the 2500 thick sounding samples that blend well with EMAX drums.
I would just trigger them from inside the X but then you lose out on the 2500 tricks.
Since the X works with more standard formats it's better than the ASR-10 for this type of use, plus the X does have some tricks of it's own.
What goes in the 10 usually stays in the 10.

I guess we will always have products that could have been great if given the right features or work flow.

THE ADVERSARY wrote:
Still it's funny because the 2500 is a good box because of the improvements, but would have been a great box if the existing features could have followed through.

Between the Akai and JJ OS, the MPC 2500 pretty much does everything you need a sampling drum machine/sampler to do. What existing features are you talking about?