It's a cool rig but all time best is a bit of a big call. Most famous yeah but best...eh matter of opinion.
I really wish akai would open up the software on the latest MPCs a bit more.My 100% biggest gripe with 90% of music hardware and software companies is their lack of openness and through this their lack of connectivity. It's like every man and their dog wants to be a mini apple with their own closed ecosystem. So very far from the ethos of music is for all imho. MPCs could actually be the best rigs on the market today if they were a bit more open!
Most musical hardware being closed is a feature. It's what gives the "it just works" quality.
Computer software can be open, and why it's difficult relying on a computer during a live performance, you never know when some weird incompatibility might occur.
If musical hardware were open, people would install random stuff from GitHub on them, and then complain to the hardware maker that it crashed during a performance.
Also, you can buy MIDI controllers if you are into open, you are not locked into anything.
Yeah nah that's a a bit of a lie. I generally put a fair bit of effort into buying open and not locked down hardware. Saying my gear is gonna lock up during a 8 hour session because it's not all from some locked down ecosystem is porky pies.
Your spreading fud. It generally winds up being if you think computers are unreliable for music production your probably just doing it wrong re. setup and config of your computer.
Also just for anyone reading this into DJing but wants to avoid closed apps. Ditch serato and Pioneer, virtualDj is way more advanced software wise, way more polished and way more open. Give it a burl the AI stems are a game changer.
Started on VDJ about a decade ago because it was the most pirated easy to get run entirely on your PC DJ software. Got serato pro with a bit of hardware and it's incredibly underwhelming piece of software. Legit it actually sucks compared to VDJ. Half of seratos features are a paid upgrade, it sucks for supporting hardware, they basically ruined their DVS support. Not to mention like ultra basic aspects of programs arent even implemented. Serato...zero touch support, zero capacity to re arrange the UI, lol it doesn't even handle scaling well, can't read text on half the menus because they get pushed off screen by scaling, can't even resize them to fit. Lol serato is a joke so is the industries support of it.
AFAIK there is no "open" synth or DAW or sequencer made to fit particular hardware. Linux has been used as the basis for some equipment but it's always left out of date, and the actual application layer which presents the UI and interfaces with hardware has ALWAYS been closed.
Most music related hardware is in fact software nowadays. They won't give away the thing that they are selling. And regarding connectivity most have DAW integrations (MPC plays nice with ableton I think) and from there you can script whatever you want.
FWIW I prefer if the industry goes more apple than linux way (and I'm saying that as a linux user). I'd rather create music than configs.
Developing this kind of instrument is a significant undertaking and it's about hardware software fusion, it's an APPLIANCE after all and it's meant to just work. It's not meant for tinkering in the internals.
The MPC Line does support class compliant external USB Audio interface AND MIDI interfaces.
In my opinion, stability and low latency should be the focus of that kind of product. If opening the hardware incurs a performance hit for everybody then it is a net negative.
I’ve just bought an MPC One recently and while it is very good, I don’t share the fawning of the author for the Akai machines. Indeed, I always suspect that articles like this are there to push up prices of hardware by bigging them up with a fantastic mythology. It happens with cameras too. It’s bollocks, quite frankly.
MPC One, MPC Live, MPC X are all basically just little underpowered computers, which I suppose you could say about any MPC but the workflow on the new ones is basically like most DAWs just with a fully mapped hardware midi controller attached. They're not really comparable to older MPCs in my opinion. I think something like the SP-404 comes closer in feel to what an MPC was.
> I think something like the SP-404 comes closer in feel to what an MPC was.
The SP404 has absolutely nothing to do with the MPC line. The SP series is basically a flip of BOSS old digital recorders and its pads weren't velocity sensitive up until the SP404 MKII released last year, the SP202 was released around in 1998, 24 years of barely any improvement in the series.
The MPC One is an MPC, with all the MPC goodies like the 16 levels and a true general purpose MIDI sequencer, which clearly the Roland SP line never had.
The fact that it's based on Linux doesn't change that fact, plenty of gear today are running Linux for convenience purposes.
The MPC line were always "DAW", they were always designed to be generic MIDI sequencers and the center piece of a hardware synth setup, which the SP line clearly never was designed for.
I think the 404 mk2 brought quite a few good new features while maintaining the core identity of the SP lineup. You say that there's not been much improvement to the series but I think that's part of the appeal. It remains focused and people are using them like instruments for (mostly) chopping samples and beat making with a great set of effects.
Perhaps it was inevitable that MPCs would evolve to the state they are in now but it isn't really the same workflow and it certainly doesn't feel like an instrument like older MPCs, drum machines, SPs, or plenty of modern grooveboxes do.
The SP404MKII still only have a single way to record MIDI events: live recording, the MPC always had at the very least an event list mode.
The SP404MKII does allow to take a sample and spread different pitches on the pads, but you still cannot sequence pitch variations live to this day.
The MPC Live/One has the exact same workflow as the older MPC. tracks, sequences, song mode, 16 level velocity/pitch, drum programs they were all there since the beginning. You don't have to use anything else. It's only when one uses the extra features that the workflow deviate from the original MPC. OS 2.11 which releases on June 23 2020 brings even more workflow improvements for the MPC Line.
While I think it's a natural evolution to the MPC line and MPCs now are probably the best standalone midi workstations to exist on the market right now (probably ever?), I still think that they lack the visceral feel of the prior generations. Maybe it's just that I'm so used to using a computer for making music that the MPC doesn't feel like stepping away from it to something standalone. Maybe the large touch screen that you have to occasionally use on the MPCs and can't ignore makes it seem that way. Then again, I suppose if you're someone that's been using MPCs since the 90s and you just gradually progressed through the newer and better iterations it feels a bit less jarring than to someone who didn't.
I don't really know what to tell you about the SP line, though. You are just listing features and how they don't perfectly map to the powerful previous generations MPC. I get that it's not the same or that it has or will ever have any sort of feature parity to even the old MPCs. I still think it's closer right now than the current MPCs, which have endless options and features and power that make them basically just an underpowered laptop with feature updates that come out on the whim of Akai rather than you buying a new VST or DAW for your computer. Admittedly Akai's firmware updates have been amazing and transformative for the MPCs in how you work with them, but I digress. It's definitely too much, while the SP is maybe not enough, but for creative work and as an instrument, the SP is much more inspiring.
These videos are nice but unless you are Ian Pooley who has spent decades working with his, it's probably going to be a bad idea for someone to buy this and expect that they're going to be making sick beatz like him.
It's not difficult to learn and the manual is extremely complete. It just feels natural and you can always discover some new way to do something. I think you could teach a child to use it fully in a month.
> Linn attempted to debug, rewrite and enhance the operating system, but he was limited by the 64K code space memory segmentation in the Intel 8088 microprocessor that left no room for new features. Further software development was abandoned.
After bankruptcy Bruce Forat took over sales and support rewriting firmware, fixing bugs and introducing numerous new features https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forat_F9000
BTW I'm a 2000/1000/One owner but I really want that 3000 someday. I'm hoping a local elderly person who only used it to get to church and the grocery store puts it up for sale some day.
Ironically since the days when I bought into the MPC I have moved toward tracking which requires nothing but a shitty laptop.
"Best Drum Machine" depends on genre and era. While legendary in many genres, the MPC never was a full replacement for a 808 or a 909 in their fields, even though there are tons of 808 and 909 sample kits for the MPC available.
If I sample a Prophet 5, it doesn't make my sampler a prophet 5. A sample is like a photography. It clearly won't retain how the subtle variations of an analogue drum computer no matter how many pictures I takes.
Now to be fair the latest MPC line (X/Live II/ One) do have a complete emulation of an analogue drum computer on board since version 2.9 I believe.
"It clearly won't retain how the subtle variations of an analogue drum computer no matter how many pictures I takes."
Yes it can, it's all just waves. Results will depend on your sampler, settings and audio signal chain. Now if it's just the analog vs digital (44.1k/16b) difference you're hearing then, to use your photography analogy, you're pixel peeping. Insignificant, especially in the final mix, especially on consumer reproduction gear.
"Now to be fair the latest MPC line (X/Live II/ One) do have a complete emulation of an analogue drum computer on board since version 2.9 I believe."
So which is it? Is it a complete emulation or does it clearly not retain the subtle variations of an analogue drum computer?
No it cannot realistically because every single note made on the Prophet 5 is not exactly the same as the previous one due to the nature and complexity of analogue circuits. Add 2 VCO, 2 VCA , cross modulation and a VCF to the mix, your sampler will never behave exactly like a Prophet 5, no matter how many samples you make out of the original device.
Even 2 prophet 5 from the same revision do not sound exactly the same.
Okay, the original topic was about drum machines vs samplers.
In general though, while tracking and performing sure, samplers and synths are in different categories. But then there are sampling synths and emulators (though obviously not the MPC). But if it sounds like a Prophet 5 in a recording, it can sound like one in a sampler.
And a sampler doesn't need to sound like every unique Prophet 5, just one.
Sold it long ago. What audio difference are you hearing? Can we agree both are a waveform, and a faithfully sampled waveform will sound the same as its original?
If so, the loss of faithfulness must be from somewhere in the signal path, like poor circuitry in the sampler or variation in mixer input stages. Is the same difference audible on a recording or only live?
I've had a request for a slider knob for one of these from someone and I have been scrounging ebay and local equivalents for quite a while now, they even go for good money when they're broken.
The MPC3000 was far more in my opinion than a drum machine.
It was a drum machine, a decent sequencer, a sampler.
Pretty much a revolution when it came out.
You could make entire songs on it (with obvious limitations)
and people did.
Uhh, no? That would easily be the 808…even if you go by AKAI, where the entire series are samplers, not drum machines - by definition - the MPC 2000XL is easily the more famous/legendary unit.
What kind of blatantly incorrect clickbait headline is this?
There's a lot of interesting knowledge in this article, and a lot of rhetoric. I'm not a fan of this kind of exaggerated writing for what is otherwise a factual history article as there's already enough confusion between delivery and veracity, and there's plenty of interesting things to say about the technology and influence contained in this machine. It reads more as PR than history. However, I do think it's hard to capture the "feel" of a piece of modern history like the MPC 3000, not only for its technologically capability, but its operation and user-base response, not to mention its cultural impact. I would like to see more about Roger Linn's philosophical approach, how the team worked behind the scenes, perhaps comparisons of sounds bounced from the 3000 vs DAWs with sampler emulations etc. I don't know, just more technical and historical detail. But I just don't think I'm the intended audience. The writer clearly has provided a lot of interesting, exciting, and practical information for their audience.
I had an MPC 1000 and a MPC 4000 (I believe the 4000 was intended to be the flagship MPC at the time). I know this article is about the 3000 specifically but I think there's a lot of cross-over with the entire MPC range in how they "feel". I'm really struggling to hold in my own rhetoric in as I write this – I want to say things like "it was magic", "the workflow is unmatched", "the feel", etc. But there was something about the combination that I miss. The interface of the 4000 was intimidating to me at first, with something like 70 little buttons (hard plastic ones with an audible 'click'), a rotary dial, 16 pads of course, and a few knobs and sliders. And it was huge. It looked like something out of a sci-fi movie (which fascinated me) and you'd think more expressive controls like sliders and knobs would make more sense. But having a button for nearly every screen and function made it really easy to stay in flow. It was fast. Everything was quite literally right under my fingertips. I still remember that feeling of not even consciously having to think of what button to press. My girlfriend at the time didn't know what I was doing but I knew it looked impressive as hell. It was like playing Tetris for me, or driving stick. I felt more a part of the machine than an operator. You can see, it's quite hard to write about without the hyperbole, but I hope comment sections allow for a little creative license (by people like me).
One strange choice that honestly was a little jarring to the workflow was the loading animation. In a machine like this, performing certain functions like bouncing or applying destructive effects to samples took time, and so the 4000 had a loading animation... for whatever reason Akai chose this to be a kind of cutesy nurse-looking lady with a bow in her hair tapping her foot like Sonic. I'm not saying nurses or bow-wearers can't produce slamming hip-hop, but it was just an odd choice considering surely Akai were aware of the MPCs use as a pro audio device, unless those missing #1400-2000 MPC 3000 LEs were bought by radiology labs or something. It wouldn't surprise me, the MPC is far more capable than I ever made use of.
I haven't used the newer range of MPCs. I've been using a Push 2 for a couple of years which is a great device. I used a Machine Studio for a while which probably comes a lot closer to the "feel" of old school MPCs, in my opinion. It seems like more hardware is coming out that takes the "stand-alone" approach, which could be a great thing!
The 4000 certainly had very limited features compared to computer-based DAW setups even at the time. I consider most forms of creativity to essentially be problem solving, so being given a set of parameters to work within is borderline essential, and can certainly be inspiring. Modern DAWs can be overwhelming in a different way in that anything is possible. Yet even in the 4000 nearly anything was possible, but the limitations in memory, for example, meant you had to commit to some ideas. You could free up space by resampling your beats and slicing them up again as if it was another loop, and essentially do that again and again recursively. Just writing this has reminded me to re-incorporate that practice into my process today. I've been feeling very uninspired for the last few months and opening my DAW (currently Ableton Live) I feel like I don't even know where to start anymore.
Anyway, the MPC felt like an instrument. It was inspiring. When I turned it on my mind knew what mode to get into. So every night I'd black out and suddenly wake up 5 hours later and wonder how I got there. So it's hard not to feel nostalgic about the MPC. I miss that feeling of being in flow. And for a variety of additional reasons, I miss knowing what it feels like to get lost in a moment.
This reads like it's some oogoody boogidy magical audiophile hardware.
"The timing on the MPC 3000 is extremely tight and about as true as you can get". What does that mean? The clocking of the 16MHz CPU makes it audibly more precise than a 8 MHz CPU? Even for a tune at 10 000 BPM jitter would sound identically inaudible. Turn off quantization and what's the difference anyway?
"You can’t really get a computer or any DAW to sound like an MPC 3000. Some claim its a matter of boosting the low end, and cutting some of the high end frequencies to match the sound of the 3000. This is simply false."
This is just dumb snake oil level crap. All these things have transfer functions that can be modelled, if you really believe you can hear a difference, which you are almost certainly imagining.
"The DAC on the MPC 3000 is extremely unique. It’s a machine and it sounds like a machine, in a good way. In the best way possible."
Yeah, I totally understand a tool being better for creating purely because of the interface and feel of the device and other things that might not be understandable.
But let’s stop pretending there is some implementation tech magic that modern hardware can’t replicate at work.
I haven’t used one, but I’m inclined to side with article. Just because a signal path can be replicated doesn’t mean it has been replicated. I have tons of music gear and can easily point you to the ones that inexplicably have a special something.
Have you ever used it though?
I’ve produced records on an MPC 3000 and then later in pro tools, logic, ableton, fl studio, etc. the MPC 3000 has its own unique sound and timing. If you actually used it , I’d understand your comment perhaps? Sure the writer is exaggerating a bit and glorifying, but it’s amazing and you cannot compare the timing and sound of it to anything else. It is unique AF.
I feel you're just reinforcing the parent's points.
> the MPC 3000 has its own unique sound and timing
Why would I want "unique" timing?
The article says "The timing on the MPC 3000 is extremely tight and about as true as you can get". Timing can't be both "true" and "unique", which is it?
This paradox is literally in every discussion about old MPCs and has been for the past 20 years that I'm reading these things. Part of the character was "the swing" but also the hardware wasn't exactly able to accurately reproduce the timing. I remember reading someone doing tests that the midi latency however was very low.
Exactly. It has unique swing settings. 53% swing on an MPC 3000 is totally different than any other swing setting from other drum machines or DAWs. It’s a matter of taste. You either like the swing setting on it or you don’t. Lots of hip hop producers loved it because it wasn’t so computerized.
To follow up from article linked by throw_m239339 below:
"Regarding clock jitter and specifically MIDI Clock jitter, this can be a factor in software drum machines on older computers, especially Windows computers. But in newer, faster computers and especially Macs running newer drum machine software, it doesn’t seem to be an issue." - Roger Linn.
The MPC 3000 is not even a drum machine, and also for me, its the MPC2000XL or MPC60, colors sound much better, but if I want an MPC sampler that is STERILE like the 3000 I much prefer the MPC1000 (2nd generation without the pad issues) with jj os.
I get people found out about J Dilla (mostly after he died), and he was a cool producer but the best tracks were made with the 2000s/60s and SP-12s. But in the mid 2000s when j dilla died I feel like the MPC community got PERVERTED by 'Dilla Fans' who found out about MPC's because of him, and changed the course of things quite a bit
The rack mounted Akai stuff was better. I remember people bitching about the MPC3000 for more than a decade on gearslutz(sorry, i know we cant call it that anymore). But because J Dilla used it now its THE BEST OF ALL TIME. No way!
I'm gonna be Cartesian tonight and say that some truths are self-evident and one of them is that this article is a joke. As I said in the thread below, I've used this machine and many others and if you've done similiar it should be self-evident that this fawning click-bait article was written by some child.
Ok and my opinion is that the article is a joke. Also you telling me that it was the pinnacle of beat machines of it's time is like apple conveying to us every time that this is their best computer yet (an even more ridiculous joke). The OP is actually titled THE BEST DRUM MACHINE OF ALL TIME. My guess is that someone quite young wrote this.
For example is this serious information to you?
The Timing
When you talk to fans of the MPC 3000, you hear them talk about “The Feel.” They will tell you that the feel of the 3000 is like no other drum machine or sampler that exists. This is due to the timing that Roger Linn built into the machine. The timing on the MPC 3000 is extremely tight and about as true as you can get. It will record exactly what you play. Essentially, it is the essense of what a “groovebox” is.
The sequencer on the MPC 3000 is second to none.
This is just false. The sequencer on it is good, but of course there are many vastly better sequencers.
Disclaimer: I've used many sequencers including the one we are discussing.
While I never investigated it personally, my understanding is that the quantization on the MPC60/3000 series was a big part of the feel. By definition, a quantized sequence is not a sample-accurate reproduction of a live MIDI perfomance.
Also, such idiosyncratic quantization is faithfully simulated in software nowadays, anyway.
Contrarily:
I challenge the notion that it is impossible to model the A/D, any DSP, and the D/A of the MPC3000 in software. While modeling non-linear response dependent on factors such as gains and impedances is not trivial, it is certainly feasible. Much of the pro audio world has moved on to plugins for their ability to reproduce the desirable aspects of analogue hardware while removing the undesirable aspects (such as noise).
A hardware sequencer/drum machine offers things that can't be modeled: tactile feel, low(er than some computers, still to this day) midi latency. Even the limitations such as a slow UI synchronously coupled to slow offline processes (which could be conceivably be modeled) affect the creative process in non-intuitive ways.
Similarly: reel to reel creates a smell that affects the vibe. Limited tape and no undo button affect the creative process as well.
DAW's are great but are essentially unlimited. This opens up horizons, but it does remove musicianship as a requirement in a recording context.
It was a great sequencer specifically for some kicks snares and hi hats. Combined with the gritty sound it had, it was very pleasing. It’s not the best sequencer. There is no best sequencer. Going from idea to completion is what matters most. I personally couldn’t stand the Zip disks anymore with it.
But that's setting the bar a bit low? There are many things that could accomplish this task extremely well (sequencing some kicks snares and hihats). The problem here for me (aside from the terrible writing) is fetishization of old and hard to obtain gear. Someone then purchases it and it collects dust because it requires more effort to use, or you don't want to devalue your investment.
I like the sound and some of records I like were produced with it.
I really wish akai would open up the software on the latest MPCs a bit more.My 100% biggest gripe with 90% of music hardware and software companies is their lack of openness and through this their lack of connectivity. It's like every man and their dog wants to be a mini apple with their own closed ecosystem. So very far from the ethos of music is for all imho. MPCs could actually be the best rigs on the market today if they were a bit more open!