AKAI MPC 3000: The Best Drum Machine of All Time
audiojive.com
audiojive.com
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!
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.
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.
Funny quote from their homepage: "There’s a reason why everybody starts with VirtualDJ." So, they start with VirtualDJ, but what do they end with?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
> 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
Ironically since the days when I bought into the MPC I have moved toward tracking which requires nothing but a shitty laptop.
I believe that these two devices should not be compared with each other because they serve completely different purposes
I think we also need to define what drum machine means. To me the MPC mainly is a drum sampler, while the 808 is an analog drum synthesizer.
> mpc have a way more possibilities for shaping a sound.
And yet the 808 can make sounds that the MPC cannot make.
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.
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.
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.
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?
What kind of blatantly incorrect clickbait headline is this?
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.
"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."
Writer sounds like a machine. Not in a good way.
But let’s stop pretending there is some implementation tech magic that modern hardware can’t replicate at work.
> 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?
Comment was about the article but can you elaborate on what you mean by timing? Jitter? Latency of the pads?
"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.
Nothing magic going on.
https://www.attackmagazine.com/features/interview/roger-linn...
The creator, Roger Linn, gives a pretty good interview here: https://www.attackmagazine.com/features/interview/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!
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.
Disclaimer: I've used many sequencers including the one we are discussing.
I like the sound and some of records I like were produced with it.
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.
SP1200 and MPC3000 were considered standard