3 ms·

Strange, I went from buying an MPC One+ to making full beats within a month, way, way faster than I did learning Ableton. I found it very easy to learn from wat

by dmix 2y ago

Strange, I went from buying an MPC One+ to making full beats within a month, way, way faster than I did learning Ableton. I found it very easy to learn from watching a youtube video series. Are you a sample based musician? That what it was designed around. Perfect for hipho. The OS does feel out of date, this current version of MPC OS came out when iPhone 6 was out, and there has long been talk of an MPC 3.0 upgrade coming soon. So it's hard to judge it entirely given its age. A huge part of it is that many serious professional musicians use this as a daily driver for production and they are VERY set on workflow patterns dating to the 90s. So reorganizing stuff would come with big customer pushback. Learning the MPC workflow and developing our own templates+flows is really critical to understanding it. Your experience with it is seemingly quite shallow but a bit understandable. > Main should really be called "editor" and "menu" should be called "main." Not really, Main is the mainscreen like your primary app view. Menu is like the start menu or a sidebar in a webapp. Editor would be confusing because there's the midi screen. And you dont edit anything besides track names. > No page has both save and load on it. Save is actually a disk so it's not clear if it saves or loads. "Load" is actually labelled "browser." "Browser" is basically "sample browser", which was it's primary purpose. Then there's shortcuts you use for your projects directory. Or you load projects screen on boot prompt screen. Otherwise agreed, File browser is probably the thing that could most be modernized. No support for renaming or deleting files either. > The hierarchy of "tracks," sequences, and programs is tricky to remember. Maybe but it's very logical when you learn it and works well. > Randomly an annoying modal "save progress window" blocks my flow. Because you put autosave on, which is optional and I dont recommend it for this reason. SOC is old af and slow. Just use proper backup protocols. > And the main/menu/record buttons are so big and need so much force it's hard to get the timing right. a lot of these critiques are quite bizarre I have to say... they are normal soft buttons on Live 2 (and shallower plastic ones on One)? Not hard push but at the same time I'd rather not hit rec and overwrite stuff accidentally either.

sivers 2y ago
Maybe DAW workflows are like programming languages. Some say language X is elegant and productive, while language Y is awful. Some say language Y is the great one, while language X is unusuable. Some workflows just make more sense to some brains than others.
- hammyhavoc 2y ago
  Really depends what you're doing too. Need to score picture or work on games via middleware? Screwed in Bitwig as there's no video or middleware support. Need to quickly and easily do sound design with external synths, mixing control voltage, MIDI and audio? Bitwig is where it's at. Need to do surround or spatial audio? Damned in a lot of DAWs. Need to export a seamless loop for a video game? Screwed if you use Cubase or Nuendo instead of Reaper or Live. Yes, you can copy-paste tails, but it's really not the same as second-pass rendering, and if you need to export several hundred files for games at regular intervals for progress updates, it ain't happening. Prefer to jam with real instruments, work in loops and layers without interruption? Without a paddle really unless you're using Live or Bitwig. Pros and cons to all of them. Tried them all, and think it's a tragedy that ReWire is dead, because that really did solve most problems by being able to use a linear DAW and a non-linear DAW, especially within the realms of scoring picture and working with video game middleware. Exporting cues, loops, layers and sfx in most DAWs is terrible as they're geared towards traditional linear songs. The solution is obvious: a ReWire successor that's an open standard. Inter-app audio and MIDI with sample-accurate clock is extremely important.
  - dmix 2y ago
    That's a good point. I make hiphop so MPC jives with me and my vinyl-based sampling workflow perfectly. A lot of critiques of MPC I see come from people doing live stuff or non-electronic based music. You can only make so many people happy with each piece of software/hardware. DAWs try to do it all, and market themselves that way, but a lot of people seem to end up using one for production, one for mixing, etc. But also there's a TON of unserious people in music who don't really learn their craft and just jump between tools looking for a solution to their disinterest in really making music, and then they leave these critical reviews of tools they didn't bother learning, before moving on to the next DAW/synth/etc
    - hammyhavoc 2y ago
      For me, the Roger Linn designed MPCs always felt like instruments in their own right, especially the 3000. JJOS also fascinating, not Linn design, but wonderful in its own right. The modern ones don't really come close to those, IMO. They're interesting, but they're more akin to DAWs in their scope, and with that flexibility comes compromise. Always loved that you could run SMTPE on older MPCs for scoring picture, that's what made Maschine an interesting proposition as you could just run it in-DAW, but unfortunately nowhere near as fleshed out as oldskool MPC offerings. The friction with Maschine for me was not being able to record mutes ala MPC—you still can't! That's without even getting into the lack of PDC in Maschine and clock stability getting worse with project complexity (this was a problem for years until I realized they didn't implement PDC!). Modern MPC software on the PC doesn't do PDC either. It's funny how things advance but regress in other ways, feel that way about computers and software in general—pretty, but lacking depth in a lot of software. I love these exchanges in unexpected places. Makes me so happy to find passion for music, especially enthusiasm for the instruments and tools.

by dmix 2y ago

sivers 2y ago

Maybe DAW workflows are like programming languages. Some say language X is elegant and productive, while language Y is awful. Some say language Y is the great one, while language X is unusuable. Some workflows just make more sense to some brains than others.

hammyhavoc 2y ago
Really depends what you're doing too. Need to score picture or work on games via middleware? Screwed in Bitwig as there's no video or middleware support. Need to quickly and easily do sound design with external synths, mixing control voltage, MIDI and audio? Bitwig is where it's at. Need to do surround or spatial audio? Damned in a lot of DAWs. Need to export a seamless loop for a video game? Screwed if you use Cubase or Nuendo instead of Reaper or Live. Yes, you can copy-paste tails, but it's really not the same as second-pass rendering, and if you need to export several hundred files for games at regular intervals for progress updates, it ain't happening. Prefer to jam with real instruments, work in loops and layers without interruption? Without a paddle really unless you're using Live or Bitwig. Pros and cons to all of them. Tried them all, and think it's a tragedy that ReWire is dead, because that really did solve most problems by being able to use a linear DAW and a non-linear DAW, especially within the realms of scoring picture and working with video game middleware. Exporting cues, loops, layers and sfx in most DAWs is terrible as they're geared towards traditional linear songs. The solution is obvious: a ReWire successor that's an open standard. Inter-app audio and MIDI with sample-accurate clock is extremely important.
- dmix 2y ago
  That's a good point. I make hiphop so MPC jives with me and my vinyl-based sampling workflow perfectly. A lot of critiques of MPC I see come from people doing live stuff or non-electronic based music. You can only make so many people happy with each piece of software/hardware. DAWs try to do it all, and market themselves that way, but a lot of people seem to end up using one for production, one for mixing, etc. But also there's a TON of unserious people in music who don't really learn their craft and just jump between tools looking for a solution to their disinterest in really making music, and then they leave these critical reviews of tools they didn't bother learning, before moving on to the next DAW/synth/etc
  - hammyhavoc 2y ago
    For me, the Roger Linn designed MPCs always felt like instruments in their own right, especially the 3000. JJOS also fascinating, not Linn design, but wonderful in its own right. The modern ones don't really come close to those, IMO. They're interesting, but they're more akin to DAWs in their scope, and with that flexibility comes compromise. Always loved that you could run SMTPE on older MPCs for scoring picture, that's what made Maschine an interesting proposition as you could just run it in-DAW, but unfortunately nowhere near as fleshed out as oldskool MPC offerings. The friction with Maschine for me was not being able to record mutes ala MPC—you still can't! That's without even getting into the lack of PDC in Maschine and clock stability getting worse with project complexity (this was a problem for years until I realized they didn't implement PDC!). Modern MPC software on the PC doesn't do PDC either. It's funny how things advance but regress in other ways, feel that way about computers and software in general—pretty, but lacking depth in a lot of software. I love these exchanges in unexpected places. Makes me so happy to find passion for music, especially enthusiasm for the instruments and tools.