Virtual MPC

Cameron Thomas said:
/\/\/\ PC I believe.
Cool, how hard is it to use, and is it a VST or Standalone or both ? Also, could you reup that becasuse it didnt come with the app, or maybe give me the link to wheere it is located / thanks.
 
Last edited:
I haven't really messed around with it. I opened it a little bit ago. It's standalone. I think it's actually dos based. It's supposed to emulate just the mpc's software so there's no fancy gui. Just what you would see on an mpc screen. I was reading about it and it looks as though it may emulate the 4000's os not the 2kxl. Download it and check it out. It's a tiny file and you won't have to install it. It runs right from the exe file.
 
L. A. Stone said:
FL alone is grossly more capable than any hardware sampler ever built. FPC is just extra that does the same thing that FL already does alone.

Let me quess you probably never used a hardware sampler right?
 
Cameron Thomas said:
I haven't really messed around with it. I opened it a little bit ago. It's standalone. I think it's actually dos based. It's supposed to emulate just the mpc's software so there's no fancy gui. Just what you would see on an mpc screen. I was reading about it and it looks as though it may emulate the 4000's os not the 2kxl. Download it and check it out. It's a tiny file and you won't have to install it. It runs right from the exe file.
That's the same file I'm talking about, there was a thread up here about it. I thought it was for Mac, but, maybe it was dos.

And "grossly more capable" is a realistic statement. Referring to multiple physical functions. There's the opinion that hardware has a better "feel" but being that both hardware and software have a "feeling" feeling isn't a grossed capability.

In lamens terms, FL has more("better" is opinion)functions than every hardware sampler I've tried(I won't vouche for all, but I've tried/know like the back of my hand most of the more famous sampler units).
 
Last edited:
L. A. Stone said:
Do you have a point to make?

I knew you never used one.this forum is filled with experts on things they know nothing about. How can you make a statement like that if you never used a hardware sampler? Is it what other experts that never used one told you?
 
Pure Hype Production said:
I knew you never used one.this forum is filled with experts on things they know nothing about. How can you make a statement like that if you never used a hardware sampler? Is it what other experts that never used one told you?

LOL. I haven't said anything about the MPC which means I've never used one. And you haven't said anything about the MPC, which means, you've never used one either. That seems to be your logic. No point in us arguing about something which neither one of us has used.

Bye.
 
i think that if you use edison to chop and drag the samples to either directwave or fpc then you should be good. Another program that use very good once you learn it is called Kontakt. Type kontakt in google video or look for the fl studio tutorials from image line. Buy FL Studio... it's very worth it if you want to save. :D
 
L. A. Stone said:
LOL. I haven't said anything about the MPC which means I've never used one. And you haven't said anything about the MPC, which means, you've never used one either. That seems to be your logic. No point in us arguing about something which neither one of us has used.

Bye.

You said FL alone is grossly more capable than any hardware sampler ever built.

There is a lot of hardware samplers not just the mpc and yes I have used many of them as well as the MPC. I am trying to determine where you get your info from that you can make those statements. Please dont just say something you heard someone else say.
 
Pure Hype Production said:
You said FL alone is grossly more capable than any hardware sampler ever built.

There is a lot of hardware samplers not just the mpc and yes I have used many of them as well as the MPC. I am trying to determine where you get your info from that you can make those statements. Please dont just say something you heard someone else say.
i think wat he was getting at was the fact that most hardware samplers do not have the ability to record, mix, use vst plugins and dx plugins, import multiple formats of audio files. I think Fl Studio falls under the DAW category (thats digital audio workstation) while a mpc is jus a music production center. with the mpc u are limited to wat sounds u can sample into it, but wit fl studio, not only can u sample sounds and map them out over keys(FL's sampler is very good at this it rivals reason nnxt imo) but u can also go deep into a audio file and chop it exactly how u want to, not to mention u have vst's and other plugins and fx at your disposal, wit the mpc im pretty sure u have to outsource if u wanna add somthing to it. So basically FL could be considered an all in one, while the mpc is def not.


FL studio:
Formats
FL7 will fit easily within your current workflow supporting VST/VSTi/VST2, DXi, DXi2, MP3, WAV, OGG (import), MIDI, ASIO, ASIO 2.

Additionally supported through DirectWave – AKAI AKP (S5/6K,Z4,Z8), Battery (version 1), MPC, Reason, Kurzweil, EXS24, Kontakt (version 1 & 2), Recycle, SFZ+ and SoundFont2.
that def has the mpc beat and most other hardware samplers, but jus to humor u all i will post up the mpc1k specs
* Pattern–based and linear 64–track sequencer with 32 MIDI channels
* 32–voice drum/phrase sampler with up to 128MB RAM
* Velocity and pressure sensitive pads for expressive programming
* 16 levels function: one sound on all pads with varied level, tuning, attack, decay or filter per pad
* Two Q–Link sliders for real–time performance control
* Built–in Compact Flash drive and USB port (Mass Storage Class)
* Standard WAV files samples and MIDI Files sequences
* Built–in Analog and Digital I/Os, headphone output and 2 x MIDI In /Out
* Internal sounds in flash
* 4–way sample layering and velocity switching per pad
* 4–pole filters (two 2–pole filters) filtering for each of the 32 voices
* 2 onboard effects processors plus 1 main out effect processor; all which can be used simultaneously
* Can resample its own output
* Optional available accessory: 128MB Ram Expansion (EXM128)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pure Hype Production said:
You said FL alone is grossly more capable than any hardware sampler ever built.

Don't start this sh*t again. When comparing the software of hardware samplers to the sofware of FL Studio it's a gross mismatch. There's no debating it. FL Studio's capabilities dwarf every hardware sampler out there. Period.

Love what you want to love about your hardware samplers but don't say it's because they have more features. It just makes you sound stupid.
 
Cameron Thomas said:
Don't start this sh*t again. When comparing the software of hardware samplers to the sofware of FL Studio it's a gross mismatch. There's no debating it. FL Studio's capabilities dwarf every hardware sampler out there. Period.

Love what you want to love about your hardware samplers but don't say it's because they have more features. It just makes you sound stupid.

Do you know how to read? If you do can you point out to me where i ever said hardware samplers have more features? Im trying to make a point that you shouldnt chime in if you dont know the difference between the both and are simply stating what someone else has said.


Software tends to not be as stable the PC could crash at anytime Hardware doesnt crash. software does not have the polyphony that hardware does. You dont have to deal with latency issues with hardware.

And to quote what Mano1 said in another thread.

(basically, if software samplers were that good, AKAI, EMU and other YAMAHA would not sell any sampler.. but they DO! More than ever.)

We are discussing samplers not DAW's. DAW's have been around for many years its not new technology and Fl could fall under the DAW catagory but its lacking big time compared to a real full blown DAW.
 
Last edited:
Pure Hype Production said:

Software tends to not be as stable the PC could crash at anytime Hardware doesnt crash.
software does not have the polyphony that hardware does. You dont have to deal with latency issues with hardware.
1st is false and there is latency with any electronic instrument played, key or pad is pressed it is processed as a function (which means it computes wat is actually supposed to happen when u press the key) then sound is outputed
Pure Hype Production said:
You said FL alone is grossly more capable than any hardware sampler ever built.

There is a lot of hardware samplers not just the mpc and yes I have used many of them as well as the MPC. I am trying to determine where you get your info from that you can make those statements. Please dont just say something you heard someone else say.
It is grossly more capable than any hardware sampler ever built it can be expanded exponentially.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pure Hype Production said:
Software tends to not be as stable the PC could crash at anytime Hardware doesnt crash. software does not have the polyphony that hardware does. You dont have to deal with latency issues with hardware.

And to quote what Mano1 said in another thread.

(basically, if software samplers were that good, AKAI, EMU and other YAMAHA would not sell any sampler.. but they DO! More than ever.)

We are discussing samplers not DAW's. DAW's have been around for many years its not new technology and Fl could fall under the DAW catagory but its lacking big time compared to a real full blown DAW.
Not trying to pick with you Pure Hype, but you're own advice should come into play here. You're speaking from one type of computer experience. An optimized music PC does not crash. It's not linked to the net or running anything but music. An optimized PC can get down to latencies lower than digital hardware, it's just that most people who comment on how shotty computer production is don't have up to date computers that surpass the minimum requirements of the software they use.

I could say "MPCs crash in a blackout" but that's not nessesarily true either. If I have the right power strip, my MPC will run long enough for me to save everything in a blackout. I can say "an MPC only has 64 tracks" not true with(i believe)the 2500 and(know)the 4000(not trying to correct anyone's earlier statements, I know that was in general).

The point I'm making is, these type back and forths get rediculous. Fact is FL really does outweigh functions of any hardware thrown at it. DAWs, keyboards, samplers, sequencers. No ones saying it's better, and people tend to think when people clarify fact that we're attacking the hardware you use.

As said before, hardware has a feel to it that will keep it around, but you can't mark "feel" up as a function that software doesn't have. It has it's own "feel" too and someone could prefer software's "feel" over hardware so that's nothing more than opinion.

When it comes to actual number stats, FL does "grossly outperform all hardware samplers, DAWs, and Digital Workstation Keyboards" I've ever sat in front of, and I've sat in front of alot.
 
/\/\/\ Exactly. No one is attacking hardware. There are a lot of pieces that I would definitely like to have. It's just when you compare hardware's software to FL's software that FL excels. Like Deranged said though a PC tuned for music does not crash. I'm going on about 3 or 4 years now without a single crash with my PC. As far as benefeits go I think hardware and software are almost dead even right now. I've been thinking about switching to a hardware setup for a long time now but haven't been able to make a decision. Features are another story though. Features don't always make a product better.
 
Cameron Thomas said:
Features are another story though. Features don't always make a product better.
Useful features do. If a new feature is introduced which allows me to save a lot of extra work it makes the product better. If just a simple feature like an extra function for faster navigating through a track is implemented, no matter how tiny the new gizmo is the better the product gets, doesn't it?
 
Sqito said:
Useful features do. If a new feature is introduced which allows me to save a lot of extra work it makes the product better. If just a simple feature like an extra function for faster navigating through a track is implemented, no matter how tiny the new gizmo is the better the product gets, doesn't it?

Like you said though useful features. FL Studio has a ton of features I'll never use. Not to mention instruments and effects that'll never get any use from me either. Someone probably uses them though. It just doesn't do much for me.
 
Back
Top