MPC Thread : MPC Live - MPC X - MPC One (Part 2)

The Lounge Other Gear
#121

If I could start my hardware journey all over again in the present day, I don’t think there’s a better place to start than the MPC Live II. I started with Ableton and a Push 2 years ago. Gradually acquired some hardware over the years - mostly Electron and TE stuff, all of which I love. The MPC Live II was an experimental purchase because my philosophy was I didn’t want to get wrapped up learning another DAW, but it has an immediacy to it for getting ideas down that I still don’t get with Ableton, even though I still consider that the central hub of my production workflow.

The closest to it I’ve experienced is the Digitakt, and I still also love that box to death, but I also find it’s easy to forget the little hacks you need to do to get it to be more than a drum machine. The MPC workflow isn’t as fun as the Digi, but also more forgiving. And coming from a drumming background, the pads are also a joy to use. They feel great, and it’s cool to have a “daw in a box” that feels like it is rhythmically based. I’m not sure how to better explain it, but Ableton and the Digitakt feel very cerebral to me, whereas the MPC feels much more familiar, like a percussion instrument.

10 Likes
#122

Yes to question number 1, no idea to number 2.

1 Like
#123

Would you mind testing it today if you have a chance? Just hold down Shift and see if the color of the Automation button differs depending on whether automation is in Write or Read mode. Thanks!

#124

Just tried and it works, the step seq button changes colour. You never stop learning…

2 Likes
#125

Thanks! It’s a great little thing for when you’re deep in an effect settings screen and want to be sure you’re not going to mess up with a sequence.

#126

I’ve got a question for anyone who owns the Live/One and the Roland MC-707/101. I’ve got the 707 and have recently been unsatisfied with sound quality and the inconvenience of setting up your own sample-based Tone tracks (the equivalent of MPC keygroups). I like the all-in-one groovebox workflow, and I’m tempted to jump ship to the MPC.

  1. How would you rate the quality of the MPC plug-ins (synth, piano, Mellotron, drums, etc) versus the Roland Zen-core engine?
  2. How would you compare the workflow of the 707 to the MPC? I never use the step sequencer, I always play it in live and just tweak the steps if necessary.
  3. When I record on the 707, I jam by bringing tracks in/out of the mix, messing with FX, and tweaking the sound setting (filter, envelope, LFO, etc). Is a similar performance ability available on MPC or is it more scripted where you record the automation ahead of time?

Thanks!

#127

I’ve got both. I chop and change between them regularly, but would choose the MPC every time if I had to.

I’d say the main differences come down to your music, if you’re synth/programming-based, the MC707 covers a LOT of ground… but it does feel like a Rompler… you don’t feel like you have a synth under your hands. If you’re music uses more audio, samples, variety of sounds, the MPC is the better option.

Honestly, I think Zencore beats the MPC plugin sounds out the box. I’ve had some sounds out of my 707 that I really really like and could not get from the MPC. But, in terms of possible sounds, my MPC has a library of sampled sounds from my Moogs, my Elektrons, my Prophet, my Peak, etc, etc, that the 707 can’t touch.
People like the Hype plugin that comes in the MPC… I don’t personally, it’s too modern for my liking, and, well, hyped… but I may be judging that off the presets.
The Mellotron is really good. So is the Odyssey. So is the Solina. They’re more what I’m into.

Overall, it’s close to call, the 707 gives you the Roland library, it’s powerful… but I’d still take the MPC with a loaded SD card.

Music Production Center. Enough said really. It’s true.
If you play in live, MPC will suit more for sure. The MPC workflow is focussed to make music/finished tracks.
The 707 workflow makes me start a lot of ideas that don’t get finished.

You can definitely perform mixes on the MPC, but the workflow is different to the 707.
I really like the 707 faders and hands on nature too, btw… but, the MPC sequence lengths are not restricted to 8 bars… so, you can quickly create yourself a 64 bar version of a seq of your track and jam that out, then recall it all (and edit it). The 707 doesn’t come close to that. Not much does in the standalone world.

I have a Novation LaunchControl XL dedicated to my MPC’s… I set this up on the 8 Submixes that the MPC gives you. I split my mixes up into 8 buss mixes/elements, and mix from the Novation’s faders.

5 Likes
#128

Thanks so much for your response! That gives me a lot to think about.

1 Like
#129

Another usability question, sorry for the amount of them from me but the manual really sucks so I can’t figure this out from it.

On the MPC Live 2, there’s a Mix button with Sampler as the secondary button. The manual says that it toggles between Track Mix and Pad Mix when you press this button, but what happens if you double press it? Does it alternate between the two mix screens only if you press it slowly, twice, or does it work with double press, and the Sampler requires Shift+press?

#130

Pretty sure without checking though…
the mix pages alternative on slow press a quick double click goes to sampler.

3 Likes
#131

I own the MC-101 but I’ve barely survived the honeymoon phase, and then I’ve owned the MPC One for about a year. I definitely think that the move you’re considering is well worth exploring and I can say that the MPC has been the best purchase decision I’ve made in years.

How would you rate the quality of the MPC plug-ins (synth, piano, Mellotron, drums, etc) versus the Roland Zen-core engine?

I think it depends on what kinds of sounds you’re interested in. Where I think the MC-101 shines is in its versatility, ranging from classic vintage Juno brass synth sounds, to acoustic instruments like saxophones, oboes, cellos, pianos and electric guitars. The MPC plugins are much more narrow in comparison, but what they deliver is (in my opinion) really good. As @CCMP says, the MPC sounds more modern than Roland for sure.

The Hype synth is more of a rompler/preset kind of synth plugin. It sounds great (I’d say as good as Zencore, but somewhat more tailored into contemporary synth sounds as opposed to the classic 80s/90s sounds of Zencore), but it’s similar to the MC-101 in that not all parameters are exposed. Meaning, you can’t modify everything from scratch, so sound design basically means picking a preset and tweaking it to your liking. It’s way more versatile than the crippled parameters on the MC-101 though, since Hype at least gives you full access to the envelopes.

Then there’s the classic and amazing Odyssey synth, which is modeled after the original. If you’re into sound design, this synth can get really deep and you have access to the full parameter settings. To my ears it clearly sounds like a 1970s synth, which you may love or hate, but with some added effects, you can go extremely deep with it.

Then there’s the bass and tube synths, which are fairly simple analog-modeled mono and poly synths. Personally, I think they deliver in spades, but I’m told by others they don’t sound as good as the top of the crop. :blush:

Let’s not forget the drum synthesizers. They’re actually excellent if you’re into drum sound design. I personally rarely bother and love all the samples I have access to.

When it comes to the plugins/effects, another thing is you get easy sidechaining on the MPC, something which the 101/707 seem to lack. And the excellent screen makes it very straightforward to get a decent sounding mix quickly while you’re still in the song embryo phase. However, I feel the Rolands have a bit more of the guitar amp and cool distortion kind of plugins, and then if I’m not mistaken they have a multiband compressor. The MPC lacks this and only has single-channel compressors. So, final mixing is probably best handled on the computer (where you can still leverage the MPC2 DAW with free multiband compressor VSTs).

How would you compare the workflow of the 707 to the MPC? I never use the step sequencer, I always play it in live and just tweak the steps if necessary.

I only have experience with the 101, not the 707, so I can’t comment on this. Between the 101 and the MPC, the workflow is of course night and day. I think where the MPC really shines is when you’re not using it as a step sequencer and instead just play it in live and tweak as necessary. I feel the same about the MC-101 actually, because its step sequencer just makes me feel frustrated, but that’s another story.

When I record on the 707, I jam by bringing tracks in/out of the mix, messing with FX, and tweaking the sound setting (filter, envelope, LFO, etc). Is a similar performance ability available on MPC or is it more scripted where you record the automation ahead of time?

On the MPC you can really do both - use it for live jams where you mute pads/tracks, sweep filters and effects etc etc, or hit the “Automation Write” button and do that same live jam with everything recorded so you can play it back again. It’s extremely versatile.

You can set up the physical q-link knobs to control whichever settings you want for a project, so you have 4 x 4 settings that you can tweak live during a jam. You can of course also switch to controlling any other parameter live too (q-links can be set to control project parameters, screen parameters and some other modes and you can switch this on the fly). This is my typical workflow when figuring out where I want to take a song, I jam on it live until I hear something I like, and then I record that in.

The MC-101 doesn’t even come close in comparison, with its limitation of max 4 parameters that can be automated (the MPC can automate just about anything). About the only limitation I’ve come across on the MPC that bothers me is that you can’t record any automation on the master and submix channels. So if you wanted to add a stutter or glitch effect to the entire track, you can only do those things live, not record them into a track (unless you resample / bounce to audio and manipulate an audio file, which is totally doable of course).

Overall, I couldn’t recommend the MPC enough. It packs so much in one box that it’s really amazing value compared to the MC-707 (again, in my opinion). The only limitation is really the CPU/performance since there are hardly any limits to the number of tracks you can create, but after a while, it will start to crumble unless you plug in the computer and run the project in controller mode - which btw is entirely seamless and works extremely well.

5 Likes
#132

Thanks @djst! I’ve seen your posts on here about going from the 101 to the MPC, so I appreciate your perspective :slightly_smiling_face:

#133

Actually it was the other way around (going from the MPC to the MC-101, or rather, amending the MPC with something else). I love my MPC, but I was looking for something more of a portable sketch pad, which led me to the MC-101. But if the sketch pad takes 10x longer and isn’t really fun to use, it isn’t going to lead to more music making in the end. :blush: YMMV.

2 Likes
#134

Don’t have the rolands but the MPC is pretty much a DAW in a box, that really shines on sample manipulation and as a MIDI sequencer.
The synth plugins are decent and there are some effect plugins that are great.

From what I see and hear on demos, the rolands feel more like grooveboxes, which might work great if you enjoy their ”inbuilt” sound. They are not as deep but perhaps also more immediate in certain areas.

2 Likes
#135

The granular plug in is worth a couple hundred just by itself to me… mpc is a complete no brainer… I don’t think there is anything on the market quite like it really… machine is catching up with plus but still is a good way behind as far as versatility IMO.

3 Likes
#136

That’s the paradox here for me: while I’m sure the 707 is different, the MC-101 isn’t nearly as immediate as the MPC. You’d think that a DAW in a box would be overly complex, but despite being the most capable groovebox on the market, you can still use the MPC to jam out new beats in minutes using very useful drum kits and presets.

If you really just want to bang out some drums and melody on the pads using live record, the MC-101 is probably about on par with the MPC in terms of how quickly you can get to a beat, but the second you want to tweak even the smallest of parameters of something, the MPC makes that so easy, whereas the MC-101 takes you into menu diving and knob twisting hell.

This isn’t to say it can’t be done on the MC-101 of course, but you have to either love the presets as they are, or find yourself deep into the menu structure all the time.

1 Like
#137

does anyone know if the new tuner will be able to tune from internally? dunno if theres any beta testers on here, I mean obviously it will be able to work from inputs like tuning guitars but say im messing with a synth plugin and want to sample and tune it. like making an 808 or whatever

#138

From what I saw, yes it will.
You can just put one on the Master Output channel, then everything will feed through it.

1 Like
#139

I can also weigh in here.

Although it’s not a very helpful answer, I’d say they balance out in general. The 707 has a lot of excellent ready-to-go sounds that can be used as a starting point, and Zen Core is a deep sample/synthesis engine if you want to go there. The TVF filter sounds really good and everything is nice and smooth.

The Force plugins are a mixed bag sonically, but are very easy to edit and have the advantage of being able to stack effects on them. Hype is a somewhat frustrating example of a great-sounding synth with a lot of potential hidden behind an often frustrating macro interface and hampered by a lack of documentation. If you ignore the thousands of presets - many of which sound very nice - and focus on the ‘init’ patches, you can get a good sense of what it can do. The new Odyssey plugin is excellent, and the electric piano and the Mellotron sound great to me. Tubesynth is a decent bread & butter VA, but nothing amazing, and the Bassline synth has never really appealed, possibly because all the presets just sound obnoxious.

The 707 is deeper, but you have to roll your sleeves up and get in there. None of the MPC synths have anything as flexible as the 707’s modulation matrix, and I think modulation is something the MPC struggles with in general. But in practice, I think the MPC synths are nicer to work with and do their job.

If you’re playing live, the MPC is surely a better choice because you’re not locked to a 128-step sequence model. Whether the piano roll is better for tweaking will depend on how you get on with the touch screen - it’s a bit clumsy - but the MPC has other tried & tested tools for removing notes on the fly etc. You can definitely play live into the 707, but it’s an X0X sequencer at heart.

In terms of wider workflow, again, it’s swings & roundabouts. The MPC is great for building layered sequences and patterns on the fly, and it has solid performance and song mode tools. The 707 is an excellent example of the X0X workflow - but that doesn’t sound like a big draw for you. Its Live-style clip arranger setup is very flexible and has a lot of potential, but the interface makes it a little fussy.

Sampling and looping are just incalculably better on the MPC. I sometimes wonder if the 707 development team were on a mission to punish people who like to sample. That’s a bit OTT, admittedly - comparison to the MPC’s method really doesn’t do the 707 any favours. If I was making an effort to be kinder, I’d say the 707’s sample features were underwhelming.

The MPC has dedicated modes for pad and track mutes, which work well. Live tweaking is better on the 707 in that you have eight sets of three assignable knobs, but the downside is you’re limited to three parameters per track. On the MPC you either have to use the screen or assign Q-Link knobs, which is less immediate but gives you control over more parameters. You can overdub multiple performance passes on the MPC to your heart’s content, which isn’t true of the 707 because, again, you’re limited to three parameters (plus the fourth ‘virtual’ knob, I guess).

If you can limit yourself to three performance parameters, that’s no problem - but I find it a regular frustration, both for programming and performance. It’s not the number of knobs, it’s the fact that if you record a filter sequence, that knob is now out of the equation - whereas on the MPC, you can leave the filter automation in place and reassign the knob.

But there is a lot to be said for the 707’s physical setup - it’s immediate and consistent, and with a bit of planning it can work really well.

Overall I’d say that immediacy is one of the 707’s strengths. It loses its appeal somewhat as and when you need to dive a bit deeper. The MPC is kind of the opposite - a bit more effort required up front, perhaps, but no problems getting under the hood and taking it where you want to go.

The 707 is, I think, a fantastic groovebox, probably the best groovebox, and the MPC is basically more than that. I can see situations where the 707 is all you’d need, and cases where it would work better, but the potential of the MPC is way, way out there. I think the MPC One is arguably the best value for money around at the moment.

10 Likes
#140

Scored a used MPC X for a decent price tonight, figured with all my gripes with the MPC platform being primarily about tactility and immediacy, I owe the MPC a go with their flagship device to see if my gripes hold. First impression is quite positive, let‘s see. :slight_smile:

6 Likes