OS2 of MPC2500 differs in specification from OS2 of MPC1000

On JJ website it says this.. OS2 of MPC2500 differs in specification from OS2 of MPC1000

Anyone know if there's anything the 2500 will do? What could this be.. ?

extra outputs and qlinks?

Rozzer wrote:extra outputs and qlinks?

ahh ..

I dunno, it'd be nice to think that we got some extra features for our extra $10.

I don't mind either way, it looks fun

it has the 5000 code as an easter egg

i reckon the extra $10 is due to lesser demand for 2500 jjos2. just by sheer numbers of 1000s compared to 2500s out there, the jj os for the 1000 is a more profitable project for the programmer.

for that reason the idea of "Extra features for the 2500" (ie code that could be included in the jjos2 for the 1000 but is left out, like a cell phone company crippling "lesser" model cells) would be a bad move as it would alienate the bulk of jj's customers, the 1000 users

BUT what i do predict is this: as qlinks get more and more powerful and as incoming CCs are going to be able to control Qlink/Qreal parameters, i imagine more non-qlink features will be able to be mapped to Qlink: such as follows:

swing
shift timing
tempo
duration
velocity

^ all of the above are non QLINK/QREAL functions that can currently be assigned to your knobs and sliders. here is where i imagine the "specification will be different" as i imagine jj could use the extra qlink real estate smarter than he is able to in the 1000 os, due to there only being 2.

similarly, i could predict a smarter use of the 8 outs, too, such as atypical groupings: 1/8, for example, or 3/7

but who knows, hand to jesus i been wrong before

^^Tru is there a shit load more 1000 users than there is 2500?

If the MPC 2500 does in fact have more room in its flash memory than the 1000, I can't see how the MPC 2500 getting more features than the MPC 1000 would alienate the bulk of jj's customers.

I did receive an email from a JJ "employee" stating that the reason for the extra $$ for the MPC 2500 OS is due to less MPC 2500 users that purchase the OS. I can't say that I actually believe that versus just an opportunity to make a larger profit. April is not too far away so all the speculation will end shortly. What I would really like is for the MPC 2500 to get some of that MPC 5000 code. What ever happens shortly, I anticipate putting more energy into the MPC 5000 once it reaches my door steps (perhaps 9 April) and less focus on what JJ is cooking up with the minimal amount of room left to code future operating systems.

Askia Shaheed wrote:If the MPC 2500 does in fact have more room in its flash memory than the 1000, I can't see how the MPC 2500 getting more features than the MPC 1000 would alienate the bulk of jj's customers.

I did receive an email from a JJ "employee" stating that the reason for the extra $$ for the MPC 2500 OS is due to less MPC 2500 users that purchase the OS. I can't say that I actually believe that versus just an opportunity to make a larger profit. April is not too far away so all the speculation will end shortly. What I would really like is for the MPC 2500 to get some of that MPC 5000 code. What ever happens shortly, I anticipate putting more energy into the MPC 5000 once it reaches my door steps (perhaps 9 April) and less focus on what JJ is cooking up with the minimal amount of room left to code future operating systems.

i thought OS worked buy using flash to boot then was running of a tiny chunk of the 16mb in built? i thought this was the only workaround for having a larger file size, is that not the case?

undersound wrote:

Askia Shaheed wrote:If the MPC 2500 does in fact have more room in its flash memory than the 1000, I can't see how the MPC 2500 getting more features than the MPC 1000 would alienate the bulk of jj's customers.

I did receive an email from a JJ "employee" stating that the reason for the extra $$ for the MPC 2500 OS is due to less MPC 2500 users that purchase the OS. I can't say that I actually believe that versus just an opportunity to make a larger profit. April is not too far away so all the speculation will end shortly. What I would really like is for the MPC 2500 to get some of that MPC 5000 code. What ever happens shortly, I anticipate putting more energy into the MPC 5000 once it reaches my door steps (perhaps 9 April) and less focus on what JJ is cooking up with the minimal amount of room left to code future operating systems.

i thought OS worked buy using flash to boot then was running of a tiny chunk of the 16mb in built? i thought this was the only workaround for having a larger file size, is that not the case?

I am far from an expert but lets do the math together. The flash memory that we could previously use to store sounds was 16 MB, I believe. JJ appeared to figure out a way to use a portion of that flash memory for the OS. I say portion because the current JJ OS is less than 1024 KBs, which is equal to 1 MB. That is 1/16 the size of the flash memory. If JJ can use the entire 16 MB, there would no reason to scale down or remove functions due to space. Now, if JJ can use the entire flash memory for the OS, then that would mean that their would be an almost limitless amout of improvements that can be made...unless the processor can't support it..which is what I suspect. But again...I am no expert.

There could be a setting to choose between 960 ppq with a max tempo of 150 bpm or 96 ppq with a max tempo of 300 bpm, so we don't have to double the tempo for 960ppq!

Make it happen JJ!!!!! )))))))))))))))))))

The quantize values would have to include 1/64.

JJ is a genius! Maybe 960ppq is something that the 2500 mobo or processor cannot do? This most likely would take a mod of some sort..but how? JJ could answer this surely..
btw, I of course would mod my 2500 if it indeed could be done!

Thing I'm getting at is, you can get 960ppq already by doubling the tempo of your track, then 1/8 quant becomes 1/16, 1/16 becomes 1/32, 1/32 becomes 1/64. Set a tempo of 160bpm and play your tune at 90bpm speed but with better resolution.
What I'm saying is that JJ could make it so that if you want the extra resolution, instead of doubling your tempo and using quant values that you need to visualise as being twice the resolution to what it says on the screen, JJ could make the OS convert what the tempo and quant values actually say on the screen.
This could be done with a setting in mode+pad10.

Also the bar numbers need changing.

Ya get me

jimmie wrote:Thing I'm getting at is, you can get 960ppq already by doubling the tempo of your track

No, double tempo is 192 ppq.

Yes, I would like a double resolution mode for OS2!!

Seems do-able (but then I don't know anything about programming code for OS's).

Of course we can already do this.
But just changing what the MPC displays and bar numbers [in a hypothetical double resolution mode] so it will account for the double tempo would be nice just for the convenience and to avoid confusion for people who use their MPCs in this manner.

Smaller quantize values (with swing) would be nice as well. And maybe negative swing values (although I imagine it would be a rarely used function).