Anyone actually use Audio Tracks?

in my mind the problem with audiotrack is you have to find a workaround to make it work in song mode . let's say i have 8 different scratches i will create a program with all the audio tracks at the beginning, i.e. i will have 16 voices of polyphony added to my beat. that's an annoying limitation.

Mike Feedback wrote:direct record is exactly what it says, you directly record onto whatever track you want while your sequence is playing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj2O-ExYzH4

its almost exactly the same thing with jj os on the 1000. the only difference is as i see it that the audio tracks are fixed to track 57-64

rabulisten wrote:

Mike Feedback wrote:direct record is exactly what it says, you directly record onto whatever track you want while your sequence is playing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj2O-ExYzH4

its almost exactly the same thing with jj os on the 1000. the only difference is as i see it that the audio tracks are fixed to track 57-64

no, it's not at all. an audio track is basically just a single wav file that can only be triggered at the beginning of a sequence, and the wav file is not stored within a program.

if you begin recording on an audio track in the middle of a sequence, it adds silence to the beginning of the file so that it would still be triggered at the beginning of the sequence. so if you have a 5 minute beat and you want to add cuts at around 3 minutes, and you hit start and record at around the 3 minute mark to record an audio track, that audio track gets created with 3 minutes of silence (wasted memory and polyphony) at the beginning of it.

also, if you record an audio track for longer than a sequence, it will either start overwriting the audio track or it will lengthen your sequence to accomodate for the extra audio.

direct record on the other hand can be done on any drum track. it's basically just allowing you to sample while the beat is playing. it remembers what step in the sequence it was at when you hit record so that when you're done recording, you can assign the sound to a pad, and then it will insert a note on event into the track if you so choose.

the only advantage that audio tracks have on direct record is that they are continuous sample tracks, where if you hit play in the middle of the sequence, it will play the sound mid-sample. the mpc2500 could only have 1 continous sample track which you would specify, but the JJ OS has the 8 audio tracks, but again, they're limited to only being a single wav file triggered at the start of the sequence as i said earlier.

audio tracks suck in comparison to direct record. direct record was the reason that i bought the 2500, and it's unfortunate that JJ has yet to implement it instead of the audio tracks.

trust me when i say that if you tried direct record, you would wonder why you ever thought that audio tracks were so great.

oh, and since direct record just makes the samples parts of your program and triggers them in your sequence, it works perfectly with song mode.

Mike Feedback wrote:

rabulisten wrote:

Mike Feedback wrote:direct record is exactly what it says, you directly record onto whatever track you want while your sequence is playing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj2O-ExYzH4

its almost exactly the same thing with jj os on the 1000. the only difference is as i see it that the audio tracks are fixed to track 57-64

no, it's not at all. an audio track is basically just a single wav file that can only be triggered at the beginning of a sequence, and the wav file is not stored within a program.

if you begin recording on an audio track in the middle of a sequence, it adds silence to the beginning of the file so that it would still be triggered at the beginning of the sequence. so if you have a 5 minute beat and you want to add cuts at around 3 minutes, and you hit start and record at around the 3 minute mark to record an audio track, that audio track gets created with 3 minutes of silence (wasted memory and polyphony) at the beginning of it.

also, if you record an audio track for longer than a sequence, it will either start overwriting the audio track or it will lengthen your sequence to accomodate for the extra audio.

direct record on the other hand can be done on any drum track. it's basically just allowing you to sample while the beat is playing. it remembers what step in the sequence it was at when you hit record so that when you're done recording, you can assign the sound to a pad, and then it will insert a note on event into the track if you so choose.

the only advantage that audio tracks have on direct record is that they are continuous sample tracks, where if you hit play in the middle of the sequence, it will play the sound mid-sample. the mpc2500 could only have 1 continous sample track which you would specify, but the JJ OS has the 8 audio tracks, but again, they're limited to only being a single wav file triggered at the start of the sequence as i said earlier.

audio tracks suck in comparison to direct record. direct record was the reason that i bought the 2500, and it's unfortunate that JJ has yet to implement it instead of the audio tracks.

trust me when i say that if you tried direct record, you would wonder why you ever thought that audio tracks were so great.

oh, and since direct record just makes the samples parts of your program and triggers them in your sequence, it works perfectly with song mode.

those are a lot of the reasons why I DON'T use audio tracks. I thought they were great for a very short time, but then realized their severe limitations.

I think they are more of a gimmick then anything.

You can easily get the same functionality by just recording your sample the regular way (you can record a midi track, play your sequence, and record the audio of the midi track all while the sequence plays) and assigning that sample to a pad and triggering it in the sequence.

You actually have MORE control doing it this way, in my opinion, as you don't have to trigger ONLY at the start of the sequence, and you can also have samples that continue playing when the sequence loops. When you record an audio track that is longer than your sequence, it doesn't loop back to the beginning, it just extends the sequence.

I do the same thing sometimes that Nym mentioned in his post, only I don't use audio tracks for them because I feel that audio tracks are poorly executed.

If you want to do 'continues track mutes' like was mentioned above without using audio tracks, then just use Q-Link LEVEL data.

i get you mike. on the other hand its nice to have them there.you can try out ideas. then you can well convert them and use them as samples. the audio tracks might look feeble in comparison to record in on the 2500 but i wouldnt wanna loose it on the 1000. if thats the only way to keep a somewhat acceptable live recording implemantation. seems odd that jj didnt just make it as on the 2500.

direct record is better than audio tracks.
a jj version of direct record would be better than the akai direct record, seeing as how jj has implemented a grid view of the audio (grid AT view)

ideally, in the JJ DR we would be able to "seize" recorded audio and move it around.

I don't think you can change the tempo of an audio track...

kMPCinya wrote:I don't think you can change the tempo of an audio track...

you can, but only in the same way that you would any other sample. through the TRIM screen.

--

question on that direct record feature:

if in the video he were to start the 2bar sequence from the middle or something and let it loop back, would the direct record feature overdub or when it looped would it just stop playing the sequence and not let it loop?

a sort of 'auto-overdub' type thing for the audio tracks would be amazing, even if the only way to accomplish it would be to use up double the polyphony. it would let your audio tracks loop more seamlessly

with direct record the sequence will loop back to the beginning and it will continue recording the sample.

Mike Feedback wrote:with direct record the sequence will loop back to the beginning and it will continue recording the sample.

sweet

if JJ audio tracks did that, I would actually use them

"give it time."

Antonym wrote:"give it time."

whose quotes are those? could it be...

thedvs01 wrote:

Mike Feedback wrote:with direct record the sequence will loop back to the beginning and it will continue recording the sample.

sweet

if JJ audio tracks did that, I would actually use them

thats my only complaint about it... if i wanted to make a quick loop/chorus off it.... or convert in song mode.... the mpc "forgets" the preformance

I hope i got the point, but... Audio tracks are awesome.

I recorded some vocals into audiotrack while beats were playing (Different verses, different takes). Normal recording mode just didn't feel so straightforward. It just felt simpler than anything else.

Afterwards i triggered those samples into new track and chopped parts from takes and played with pitch shift and did some vocal pitch shiftery.

tosh79 wrote:...played with pitch shift and did some vocal pitch shiftery.

Tryin' to make yourself sound like Tone Loc again??