Audio Tracks vs Direct Record

can someone explain to me why audio tracks in the JJ OS are better than direct record that the akai OS has? i fail to see how audio tracks are an improvement, i'd rather have it work the way direct record did.

audio tracks are alot better...makes the mpc1k like a lil mv8000

thanks, but you didn't answer my question.

why are audio tracks better than direct record?

the only plus i can see is that all 8 are continuous sample tracks, but there are way too many drawbacks for me. i'll list the drawbacks later tonight when i get out of work.

but instead of implementing the audio tracks the way it is now, JJ should have just allowed for you to select up to 8 continuous sample tracks, kept the direct record feature and it would have been great.

Direct record is still in the JJ OS. You can press stop in the middle of a seq and press play again from where you stopped (not PLAY START) and the sample will pick up from there. If you just loop a sample you know that if you press stop the sample won't start again until the seq loops back around so that pad can be triggered again.
You can also record while the seq is playin'. You could do that with the Akai OS in the 2500, but not the 1k.
That's all I can gather for now.

Direct record is still in the JJ OS. You can press stop in the middle of a seq and press play again from where you stopped (not PLAY START) and the sample will pick up from there. If you just loop a sample you know that if you press stop the sample won't start again until the seq loops back around so that pad can be triggered again.
You can also record while the seq is playin'. You could do that with the Akai OS in the 2500, but not the 1k.
That's all I can gather for now.

hereo wrote:Direct record is still in the JJ OS. You can press stop in the middle of a seq and press play again from where you stopped (not PLAY START) and the sample will pick up from there. If you just loop a sample you know that if you press stop the sample won't start again until the seq loops back around so that pad can be triggered again.
You can also record while the seq is playin'. You could do that with the Akai OS in the 2500, but not the 1k.
That's all I can gather for now.

direct record is not in the JJ OS. it specifically says it's not on the website. he's replaced it with the audio tracks which in my opinion is not as powerful as direct record, and probably takes up a lot more coding.

here's an example of direct recording: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj2O-ExYzH4

direct record allows you to begin recording a sample at any point when a sequence is playing. the mpc will remember the exact step that you hit the record button at so that when you're finished recording, you can assign that recorded sample to a pad and then place an event triggering that pad to the sequence at the proper step. you can also just save the recorded sample without assigning to a pad or inserting into the sequence.

some disadvantages of the audio tracks:

1) they can only play one sample.

2) that sample can only begin at the very beginning of the sequence, although it can begin play mid-sample. (beginning play mid-sample is what continous sample did on the Akai OS)

3) if you begin recording in the middle of the sequence, it actually adds silence to the beginning of your sample so that the sample start point is at the beginning of the sequence. who the heck wants a bunch of extra silence taking up their memory when it's not necessary? say you have a 16 bar loop and you just want to add something to the last bar, you're going to have a sample that's 16 bars long with 15 bars of silence at the beginning.

4) if you record past the end of the loop, it extends the length of your sequence instead of looping back to the beginning, so if you want to add something to the end of your sequence that continues past the end and back to the beginning, it can't be done without doubling the length of your sequence, recording what you want to add in the middle, and then trimming that sample and placing it in the sequence as a regular drum track... which is basically what direct record does naturally.

so i ask again, what is better about audio tracks than direct record?

So Direct Record was on the 1k Akai OS? I'm gonna mess around with this Direct Record in a lil while. I havent had much use for even Audio Tracks, but maybe I can find a use for them or Direct Record.

Mike Feedback wrote:here's an example of direct recording: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj2O-ExYzH4

Thats a 2500, no direct recording on my 1k akai os, or didnt i find it?

That feature has never been on the 1k, you are in the wrong forum.

I though it wasn't in there. I remember showing my homies how to direct record on their 2500 cause I saw it on Youtube. I tries it after that on my 1k and it didn't work. When Mike was talking about Direct Recording, I though he mightve been talkin' about MODE+Pad 6.
You must have a 2500, huh Mike?

yes, i do have a 2500. i didn't post this in the wrong forum, i posted it here because no one really posts in the 2500 forum, and the JJ OS for the 1000 and 2500 are basically the same.

i just notice that everyone praises audio tracks like it's the greatest thing, but it's obvious that it's not since it has so many flaws.

i think it would be better if audio tracks were removed and the direct record feature that the Akai 2500 OS had was implemented.

That's explains it. We prolly like Audio Tracks we didn't have nothin' like them before.
You had Direct Recording, which by what you say is better. I like Audio tracks though.

You guys (2500 users) still have code space, so maybe you guys will get that back. 1000 users have no space left except like 2kb, but Jj might be able to work with that.

even for the 1000 users, i think you'd be better off with the direct record feature instead of audio tracks. it might free up space for other things.

audio tracks seems like it probably took a lot of code to implement, whereas direct record uses functions which are probably already available. like i said, all direct record is doing is allowing you to record from the inputs while the sequence is playing in the main screen. it remembers what step the sequencer was at when you began to record the sample so that when you assign the sample to a pad, it can trigger that pad at the point in the sequence where record was pressed, successfully placing the sample in sync with the sequence.

the only negative is that the tracks won't begin to play mid-sample from a stopped position. the 2500 allowed only one selectable continuous sample track which could do that, but perhaps it could be implemented where more than one track could be a continuous sample track (possibly 8?), and if that is possible, then audio tracks would be completely obsolete.

Mike Feedback wrote:even for the 1000 users, i think you'd be better off with the direct record feature instead of audio tracks. it might free up space for other things.

audio tracks seems like it probably took a lot of code to implement, whereas direct record uses functions which are probably already available. like i said, all direct record is doing is allowing you to record from the inputs while the sequence is playing in the main screen. it remembers what step the sequencer was at when you began to record the sample so that when you assign the sample to a pad, it can trigger that pad at the point in the sequence where record was pressed, successfully placing the sample in sync with the sequence.

the only negative is that the tracks won't begin to play mid-sample from a stopped position. the 2500 allowed only one selectable continuous sample track which could do that, but perhaps it could be implemented where more than one track could be a continuous sample track (possibly 8?), and if that is possible, then audio tracks would be completely obsolete.

this makes perfect sense - would like to see more room free up for other stuff ... jj lets have direct record on the 1000 .... please

what do others think?

should we set up a thread with poll?

ttfn

f