took my 4k round to visit friends 5k

[quote="Askia Shaheed"]
Regardless..they have never produced anything on the level of the latest MPCs or MV. The MPC 1000s operating system is more advanced than the MPC 3000 or any drum machine Linn or Roger created. Now they are going to attempt to surpass the highend MPCs and MVs?/quote]


you're talking balls.

The MPC3000 was cutting edge state-of-the-art in its day.
It was "primitive" by modern standard not because its designers were primitive, but because the current *technology* couldn't do more.

To extrapolate from that and say they can't design a modern machine is a total non-sequitor.

Furthermore, an excellent design need not be inordinately complex - in fact, the best designs for instruments often are deceptively simple.
(Have you heard of the guitar? It's only got six strings! lol )

renegadebliss wrote:

Askia Shaheed wrote:I don't believe they have the resources to do it. And if I remember correctly, they put out a call for other programmers to help because they really are going to need it.

It's fairly easy to find qualified dsp programmers in Silicon Valley, where they are located. Luckily for them, there are lot
of out of work people in the Valley, many talented as well. And both Dave Smith and Roger Linn have had very successful
product lines lately (the MoPHo having trouble staying in stock), so I'm glad that they will be able to hire some talented
Silicon Valley folk to their company. We (us musicians) should see benefit from this, beyond even the Linn Drum.

Time will tell, but what Akai has done with MPC line and what Roland has done with the MV line is not rocket science ...

should be interesting what they bring into the forey. I say, let's have even more alternatives.

If it's not rocket science and people actually demand such products...then why are there not more companies that make these type of products? (Your opinion of course). Why are these forums dedicated to people complaining about products that lack needed features and reported bugs? In fact, Roger Linn left some bugs in the last MPC 3000 OS which was released in 1996 and only recently updated by a 3rd party. Ex-Akai MPC programmer infamously known as JJ, has beed fixing bugs in his 3rd party OS release for over two years. Based upon these questions and statements...maybe it is rocket science.

feline1 wrote:The MPC3000 was cutting edge state-of-the-art in its day.
It was "primitive" by modern standard not because its designers were primitive, but but the current *technology* could do more.

To extrapolate from that and say they can't design a modern machine is a total non-sequitor.

Furthermore, an excellent design need not be inordinately complex - in fact, the best designs for instruments often are deceptively simple.

The MPC 3000 being "primitive" statement was to compare Linn's greatest creation to what is on the market today. In simple terms, the MPC 3000 is the most intricate workstation he helped develop. Linn going from creating a "primitive' workstation and then attempt to create something (within 2 years) that will set the bar for products that have been in development for 10 years is not a simple task. I don't believe they can pull it off.

I can do Algebra but I am nowhere close to being a mathematician. Linn can program a simple drum machine sequencer but I doubt he can pull off a full blown digital audio workstation. I have $100 to bet that we will be talking about issues with the design and OS of the Linn Drum II (or what ever they call it next) when it is released in 2009...2010..2012??

Askia Shaheed wrote:
I can do Algebra but I am nowhere close to being a mathematician.

Yes. and you can spout hot air, but you are nowhere close to having a sensible point to make

I'm not even sure the Linndrum 2 has to compete with the Akai and Roland's of this world. For me it would merely have to look, feel and sound pro, and have plenty of options for creating happy accidents.

feline1 wrote:

Askia Shaheed wrote:Regardless..they have never produced anything on the level of the latest MPCs or MV. The MPC 1000s operating system is more advanced than the MPC 3000 or any drum machine Linn or Roger created. Now they are going to attempt to surpass the highend MPCs and MVs?/quote]


you're talking balls.

The MPC3000 was cutting edge state-of-the-art in its day.
It was "primitive" by modern standard not because its designers were primitive, but because the current *technology* couldn't do more.

To extrapolate from that and say they can't design a modern machine is a total non-sequitor.

Furthermore, an excellent design need not be inordinately complex - in fact, the best designs for instruments often are deceptively simple.
(Have you heard of the guitar? It's only got six strings! lol )

Co sign.

or make something that before seemed complex very simple.

recent examples for me of this include ableton live and autotune/melodyne

G

indeed.

I'm sure most of us will agree that the MPC4000 design is NOT as good as the original MPCs - it is not as straightforward, not as instant, not as easy to just make good-sounding stuff come out.

It DOES have tons more features and capabilities, but they take a lot of learning and effort to make use of.

I would expect the new Linn/DaveSmith design to not make that mistake.

feline1 wrote:indeed.

I'm sure most of us will agree that the MPC4000 design is NOT as good as the original MPCs - it is not as straightforward, not as instant, not as easy to just make good-sounding stuff come out.

It DOES have tons more features and capabilities, but they take a lot of learning and effort to make use of.

And this is where the MPC 5000 comes in. I honestly believe Akai got it right. It is straight forward, instant, easy to just make good-sounding stuff come out. It does have tons more features and capabilities and there really is no learning curve. It really is fun to make music with the MPC 5000.

As far as me having a sensible point...I am not the one here proclaiming a piece of vapor-ware (aka Linn Drum Evolving Boomtrik XL) is going to change the world for musicans

I would call putting a Mediocre synth on an MPC a step backwards. If they wanted to put something of the Evolver's level on it,
then yes, that would be a step' forward. Where's the Modulation Matrix. Where's the Sysex Dumps...

You could also indicate that the 5000 offerred many things that were never seen in an MPC before. I would say they eliminated
as much as they added on . Again Where's the Modulation Matrix. Where's the Sysex code for remote controlling? Where can I plug
in my 128 external hard drives and 2 Internal Harddrives? Where's my Ak.Sys. Where's the Q-Link sequencer? Where's 512M?
Where's unlimitted Programs (why only 128.. why limit your users)? Where's 300,000 note capacity (and yes I HAVE hit the limit).
Where's 128 Tracks per sequence? Where's 128 Sequences in memory? Where's 6 pad banks?
For every 1 thing they added with the 5000, there's probably 2 things that they removed. You can call that a step forward if you want.
I call it a step back. Or at the very least a step to the side.

So I see you have specifc things you want in an MPC. Some that I haven't heard many people talk about. You should add them to the MPC 5000 feature request thread. But I have to add that most of those feautures will be unlikely additions to what Roger Linn will put out in 5 years.

Talking specifically about the MPC 5000 taking a step back:

Cop A Feel
The heart of any MPC is its sequencer. MPC5000 was developed around the world’s finest-resolution sequencing engine. 960 parts per quarter note (PPQN) precision sample placement enables MPC5000 to produce the least quantized feel of any sequencer – hardware or software – available today. And we know that’s a bold statement, but MPC5000 has the goods to back it up. Not only does 960 PPQN translate into uber-accurate note placement, but you can also apply quantization without making beats feel robotic because you can customize the strength of pull within a specified window. That means that you can fine-tune the amount of rhythmic “play” MPC5000 will allow, tailoring your beats’ feel. You can place and time-shift notes on the beat, on top, or behind the beat and even specify how large that window should be… only on an MPC5000.

DIY Sound
One of the most important capabilities of any MPC is its sample engine, and the sampler section of MPC5000 is no slouch. Designed as a drum sampler in the MPC tradition, MPC5000 contains a 64-voice sampler with memory that is expandable up to 192MB with the optional EXM-E3. It contains 42 different filter types for creative, sonic flexibility.

An oft-requested feature from MPC3000, Simult mode is back! This popular triggering mode enables beat makers to assign the samples on multiple pads to be triggered by one pad. Sample cycling, velocity effects, layering, and effects can then be applied to the individual samples.

MPC5000 enables producers to sample from microphones, line-level sources such as tape decks and instruments, turntables, digital sound sources such as DATs, and even directly from CDs and DVDs using the optional CD-M25 CD/DVD drive.

Because MPCs are used increasingly for complete song production, the new Continuous Sample Track mode provides nearly unlimited direct recording so you can track vocal takes and overdubs, for example.

Mo’FX

MPC5000 has the most flexible effects engine of any MPC. The four-buss system has two effect slots per buss and you can chain busses one and two (and/or three and four) together to apply up to four effects to a sample while maintaining individual-effect access with other samples. MPC5000’s effects-routing capabilities are truly extreme. Direct On/Off enables you to use effects as sends or inserts on return. You can process any or all of the external inputs, and in addition to the four busses, there’s a Master EQ and Master Compressor for system-wide control. The Master Compressor offers Old School mode, which transforms your audio into 12-bit, 30 kHz vintage sampler sound. You can store effects sets and settings in ALL files and quickly recall them for use later. MPC5000 contains the most Q-Link assignable controllers we’ve ever put on an MPC. These flexible knobs and sliders can be assigned control most effect parameters, giving you instant, hands-on control of the creative process.

MPC: Session Ace

MPC5000, in an unprecedented development, contains an eight-track streaming hard-disc recorder for song mode, enabling producers to capture live audio from each of its inputs. Track vocals, DJs, live drums, horns, or even strings right into MPC5000’s hard drive. When you’re done, bounce the whole session to an SD card, out to your DAW via USB, or direct to disc using the optional CDM-25 CD/DVD drive.

Great Sounds. Quick

Another MPC first, MPC5000 contains a 20-voice, three-oscillator virtual-analog synthesizer designed to enable creative types to develop and tweak their own sounds. MPC5000 has tons of filter modes including filters modeled to give you instant access to some of the most popular vintage analog synth sounds for today’s music. The synth contains an arppeggiator, putting melodic and rhythmic patterns and cycles at your fingertips.

My name is Askia Shaheed and I approve this message

The point is not if the 5000 has specific features or not. or what machine has more features than others.



The point is simple: What the 5000 has plenty features, but the features suck.


Example - The feature of a Synth built in is GREAT!!! - However the ACTUAL SYNTH well, SUCKS!!!


easy.

So the bottom line to this comparison war is...can one benefit from these advancements in the form of their music? I mean, who's going to listen to your music and say "that sound or feature was implemented from a mpc 4k or 5k".

As with any tool, it's totally useless even if the user can't take advantage of it's basic functions. Yeah, what good is an onboard synth going to do when it's targeted group doesn't play keyboards. I don't know, but from the way I've seen things come about with this latest MPC, I feel it's got SUCKER written all over it.

firework wrote:The point is not if the 5000 has specific features or not. or what machine has more features than others.

The point is simple: What the 5000 has plenty features, but the features suck.

Example - The feature of a Synth built in is GREAT!!! - However the ACTUAL SYNTH well, SUCKS!!!
easy.

What sucks about the synth? The sound? If you can't get great sounds out of the 5Ks onboard VA synth, don't blame the machine but the user programming the synth patch. Now if you have some specifics, please share your experiences.

Askia Shaheed wrote:

renegadebliss wrote:

Askia Shaheed wrote:I don't believe they have the resources to do it. And if I remember correctly, they put out a call for other programmers to help because they really are going to need it.

It's fairly easy to find qualified dsp programmers in Silicon Valley, where they are located. Luckily for them, there are lot
of out of work people in the Valley, many talented as well. And both Dave Smith and Roger Linn have had very successful
product lines lately (the MoPHo having trouble staying in stock), so I'm glad that they will be able to hire some talented
Silicon Valley folk to their company. We (us musicians) should see benefit from this, beyond even the Linn Drum.

Time will tell, but what Akai has done with MPC line and what Roland has done with the MV line is not rocket science ...

should be interesting what they bring into the forey. I say, let's have even more alternatives.

If it's not rocket science and people actually demand such products...then why are there not more companies that make these type of products? (Your opinion of course). Why are these forums dedicated to people complaining about products that lack needed features and reported bugs? In fact, Roger Linn left some bugs in the last MPC 3000 OS which was released in 1996 and only recently updated by a 3rd party. Ex-Akai MPC programmer infamously known as JJ, has beed fixing bugs in his 3rd party OS release for over two years. Based upon these questions and statements...maybe it is rocket science.

It's definitely not Rocket Science.. it's DSP Programming. They teach it in most community colleges and up. The demand for these
types of machines are not quite as high as one would think, especially with the advent of more computer based synth heads.
So most DSP programmers would rather use their talents for making things like the iPod and other embedded gadgets, that can
reallly bring in the money for them. If you look at the entire music industry, people like myself, that only make music with hardware
and don't use a computer, are very rare people. The new kids would rather steal software and utilize that. Yamaha dropped out of
the market with their RS 7000 series literally because it wasn't profitable and they couldn't make the kind of money that they were
making on the workstations. Actually they went and purchased Cubase, so that they could have their feet firmly established where
the Music Industry is going. I would have loved to have seen what Yamaha would have put out, after the RS 7000, who's sequencer
still has many many features that Akai should still attempt to implement.

Finding and Fixing bugs in software is common practice throughout the industry It's what employs me during my day. Just because
there are bugs in software, doesn't mean that it's rocket science, it actually means that it's software. Almost all software, if not all
software has bugs.

Askia Shaheed,
You spend so many posts in a multitude of treads defending the 5k to point that you make me think it's a P.O.S. and your just trying to convince yourself otherwise. With every post you make I become more and more certain that I would never buy an MPC-5000. No other MPC in MPC history has needed so much pumping up to be recognized. Even the diminutive form factor of the 500 didn't make me say Never! But the with 5000, mark my words. Never, Ever, Ever, Never! If someone gives me one I promise to sell it on Ebay...
Scouts Honor.

Askia Shaheed wrote:

firework wrote:The point is not if the 5000 has specific features or not. or what machine has more features than others.

The point is simple: What the 5000 has plenty features, but the features suck.

Example - The feature of a Synth built in is GREAT!!! - However the ACTUAL SYNTH well, SUCKS!!!
easy.

What sucks about the synth? The sound? If you can't get great sounds out of the 5Ks onboard VA synth, don't blame the machine but the user programming the synth patch. Now if you have some specifics, please share your experiences.

Preset Management - how do you save and load individual patches, now many synth patches can be in the RAM at once?

Modulation Options - (no modulation matrix, only 1 LFO other then the 1 that is dedicated for Vibrato)