When will Akai MPC-X - type units replace computers?

[alexis]

http://www.soundonsound.com/news/akai-l ... x-mpc-live

Computers can be so finicky, and the trend for operating systems to act more and more intrusively can make using them increasingly aggravating. I wonder if the home (and professional?) recording studio of the future will be more hardware based, centered around a unit like the MPC-X?

I could see that sort of unit, in combination with a UAD Apollo-type unit for plug-ins, being very acceptable to use, once features like time-stretch and other detailed editing tools of fully-featured DAW sequencers are brought up to snuff.

Actually, is there any reason the DAW sequencer companies wouldn't start making their products compatible with these hardware units, similar to the way companies like Auria and the like are doing now for tablets and phones (though very defeatured, as it stands nowadays)?

Moving away from the computer sounds potentially very attractive to me ... computer maintenance and other issues seem to take up so much of the attention that could/should be given to creativity ...

Is that whole idea crazy? ... will the standalone recorder (plus/minus connections to Apollo-type units for plugins) never be able to compete with a powerful computer?

Thank you for any thoughts!

[James Perrett]

They're just computers inside.

If you manage your computer in the same way as you would manage the MPC - ie: only make changes when approved and tested by the manufacturer, you'll get similar levels of reliability. If you have an unreliable computer it is either down to a hardware fault or the way you manage it.

[Wonks]

How many different versions would there have to be to suit everyone from beginner bedroom recordist to pro-studio level. How many different RAM levels? How many different combinations of input and outputs? How many different levels on inbuilt pre-amps? How many different internal and/external hard disks does it have space for? How many video monitor outputs does it have and how many screens can the graphics card cope with? How do you load and run software plug-ins from 3rd party vendors? How do you load and run multi-GB sample libraries? How do you cope with obsolescence of computer chips in the case of failure (computers will still go on developing regardless) or constantly changing serial interfaces and standards?

[Hugh Robjohns]

I wonder if the home (and professional?) recording studio of the future will be more hardware based, centered around a unit like the MPC-X?

It's an illusion! It's not really 'hardware based' at all -- there's still a computer in there running software. It's just that the interface /OS has been stripped down or hidden so that it's less of a distraction -- and to optimise the functionality to the required sub-set of computer cleverness.

The RADAR 'hardware' multitrack recorder is a PC running a bespoke front end that hides most of the computeriness. The Studer Vista mixing consoles run on an internal Windows computer with a bespoke hardware interface that hides the computeriness... That's just the most cost-effective way of doing these kinds of things with the quickest development time.

Actually, is there any reason the DAW sequencer companies wouldn't start making their products compatible with these hardware units...

Just the usual business constraints: Would the potential sales market justify and fund the software re-development? Would the 'hardware platforms' remain stable enough for long enough to make the software development feasible? I suspect the answer is no to both...

Moving away from the computer sounds potentially very attractive to me ...

Everything has a computer in it these days, including the hardware... Just think about how many devices now have USB connections and internal web-interfaces for setup. Connected machines and all that... It won't be going away...

computer maintenance and other issues seem to take up so much of the attention that could/should be given to creativity ...

This is only really a problem if you use your 'audio computer' as a general purpose machine (or a fashion statement! ). In those situations you have to keep it updated with security patches, latest OS etc, and the more general-purpose you want it to be, the more potential for software/hardware clashes and bugs there is, and the more risky updates become.

However, if you treat it like hardware -- buy it to do a specific audio job, set it up and leave it alone, (separated from the Interweb) it shouldn't require much attention at all. I have an old XP machine that runs the (old) SADiE DAW for mastering and burning CDs and it works as reliably today as it did a decade ago when I bought it. Of course... I can't do much else with it now, but I didn't buy it to run the latest computer games...

H

[Richie Royale]

My 'fashion statement' is a 2008 machine running an OS from 2009 (last update was 2011) and it does the music part perfectly fine and still interacts with the interwebs without a problem.

As for MPCs, they are something that some people love as it encompasses an al in one machine, but I had an MPC 2000XL many years ago and it just didn't do it for me.

[Dynamic Mike]

Moving away from the computer sounds potentially very attractive to me ... computer maintenance and other issues seem to take up so much of the attention that could/should be given to creativity ...

Personally I'd love to completely divorce my recording set-up from my PC. I'm not sure my basic needs have changed much in 30+ years. My expectations have risen certainly, but I'm tired of being trapped in a constant upgrade cycle, with each upgrade offering less & less that I really need to be creative. I've gradually reduced to what is essentially a Steinberg/Toontracks/iZotope set-up to minimise disruption to the process. I wouldn't go back to a hardware set up for a gold clock, I love having multiple instances of plug-ins, I love having non-destructive edits, & working alone I depend heavily upon automation.

But, and I suspect this is a big 'but' for professionals, as a hobbyist I don't have to accommodate the needs or expectations of others. I don't have to compete with anyone, I don't need to be able to work with multiple formats or produce anything within a timeframe.

I can see the hobby/project market adopting MPC style units for 2 reasons. One, it does everything we need with minimum fuss. Two, many of us spend our working lives tied to a PC, blighted by crap software & incompetent IT support. We don't need more of the same when we get home.

[OneWorld]

However, if you treat it like hardware -- buy it to do a specific audio job, set it up and leave it alone, (separated from the Interweb) it shouldn't require much attention at all. I have an old XP machine that runs the (old) SADiE DAW for mastering and burning CDs and it works as reliably today as it did a decade ago when I bought it. Of course... I can't do much else with it now, but I didn't buy it to run the latest computer games...

H

That's all very well - I wish. Thing is some apps demand you update the OS. The later versions of Cubase, Halion, Kontakt insisted I moved away from XP, otherwise I would have stuck with it, it was running a treat, stripped back and booted in no time at all.

[Bob Bickerton]

Thing is some apps demand you update the OS.

Not if you're not connected to the internet they don't

Bob

[Bob Bickerton]

Any device, hardware or software, requires management. Whilst I never used multitrack tape, I'd imagine maintaining my Logic/UAD/Mac based system requires less maintenance than the 'good old days'.

I don't use a million plugin brands, I'm careful to check compatibility before upgrading my OS and yes, I'm connected to the net and use my computer for a wide range of business applications.

I'd go barmy within minutes trying to use a gismo like the Akai. Technology has advanced at a faster pace than the people who use it, myself included......

Bob

[ConcertinaChap]

Happy with a computer in the studio but I've never quite been able to bring myself to trust them when out onsite - they have too much potential to behave in embarrassing ways even when they're functioning normally. So I use a recorder in that circumstance, a Tascam DR680, and transfer the files to the DAW when I get home. No embarrassment yet.

CC

[ConcertinaChap]

The big problem with any device that isn't a desktop computer is that they don't have 27" screens!

CC

[Mike Stranks]

Happy with a computer in the studio but I've never quite been able to bring myself to trust them when out onsite - they have too much potential to behave in embarrassing ways even when they're functioning normally. So I use a recorder in that circumstance, a Tascam DR680, and transfer the files to the DAW when I get home. No embarrassment yet.

CC

Exactly my philosphy too.... except I don't even record straight to the PC when at home either!

But all editing, mixing, sprinkling of fairy-dust is very much in-the-box....

[Hugh Robjohns]

Thing is some apps demand you update the OS.

No... they really don't.

You only need to update the OS if you update the app... but if you treat it like hardware -- buy it to do a specific audio job, set it up and leave it alone you won't be updateing apps and you won't need to update the OS. The machine will continue to do exactly what you bought it to do on day 1.

The later versions of Cubase, Halion, Kontakt insisted I moved away from XP...

So the real question is, did you need to upgrade your versions of Cubase etc, or did you just want to? What changed in your working practices that demanded upgraded apps? I suspect the answer is nothing at all, and in reality you could still do all you need to do with the original set up... but we all like shiny new things with shiny new tools that impress... even if we don't really need them or use them!

H

[CS70]

So the real question is, did you need to upgrade your versions of Cubase etc, or did you just want to? What changed in your working practices that demanded upgraded apps? I suspect the answer is nothing at all, and in reality you could still do all you need to do with the original set up... but we all like shiny new things with shiny new tools that impress... even if we don't really need them or use them!

Well, yes and no. The point with newer versions (not all, of course; but many) is that they bring tangible benefits: sometimes in terms of what you can do (there is no Melodyne on a 386 DOS box); most often how you can do it: how fast, how comfortable, how repeatable etc.

That's why people upgrade.

That democratization of music making, publishing and so on has come because the small incremental improvements add up to huge efficiency savings or possibilities which simply didn't exist before, or required way more effort than what people would, or could, put down (Instagram anyone?).

I understand well your point of leaving the machine alone: often the desire for upgrading OS comes from non-audio sources (hei! I want to play the SuperNewGame and it doesn't run on XP!), and it's fair to say that in that case one could avoid.

At the same time not everybody can afford multiple machines (money, space etc); and, a bit deeper, our ever-faster paced society is exactly based on the idea that technology allows you to cut down all the small time stealers, adding up to gigantic productivity gains.

Having to switch device and place for a specific task is one of the biggest time-stealers - and a key in the enormous success of portable general purpose "phones" and laptops.

The way that nowadays I don't need ever to go find a timetable for public transport (the phone tells me in real time when the bus is coming), I don't need to find cash machines to buy stuff (cards first, then now for private people money transferring apps on the phone which work instantaneously), I don't need to go to the bank (I have it in my phone, always with me).. it allows me to live three or four separate lives. Without that, I simply would not have the time. And the list is ever growing.

That this speed is a good or bad thing is a different issue (for what's worth, my $.10 is that can be both, depending), but the fact remains that it *is* - and upgrading (phones, computers, routers) is what brings it about.

Thank godness for tube guitar amps, tough.

[ConcertinaChap]

Plus, of course, your machine could die (as my iMac did a year ago, irreparably because they don't make backlights for that model any more). You rarely have much choice about upgrading the O/S along with the new machine then.

CC

[Hugh Robjohns]

The point with newer versions (not all, of course; but many) is that they bring tangible benefits...

Sure, of course... I absolutely get that... but that flies in the face of my previous recommendation that you buy a computer to run a fixed set of software that does the jobs you need to do,... and then leave it alone. There may well be attractive and tangible benefits to upgrading, but there too are inevitable reliability issues. My attitude is upgrade if you want -- and I do, sometimes, obviously -- but do so in the full knowledge and acceptance that, in all likelihood, something else will break or become unreliable or unusable.

It's a balance of risks: what's more important to me and my business/hobby?

Historically -- and there are exceptions, obviously -- but in general we didn't buy a mixing console and then later expect to be able to upgrade it with 6-band EQ and 12 Auxes. If we really needed those facilities, we accepted that we would have to go out and buy a bigger desk... But in the meantime the old desk did what it was designed to do, reliably, and we accepted that.

Imagine the chaos if we came into the studio one morning with a hacksaw and a soldering iron and decided to 'upgrade' it by adding six new aux sends to each channel and revamp the EQ. Would we expect the venerable old desk to still be reliable? I don't think so.... and computers aren't all that different from that (slightly tongue-in-cheek) parallel.

Thank godness for tube guitar amps, tough.

H

[Ariosto]

I also use a separate recorder and transfer the files, as it is extremely portable (not that I often take it out these days) and it saves the possible problems already discussed. I also find a computer can add noise and problems when using them for live mic recordings. It works well for me, and causes me very little hassle. (Tascam HD-P2).

[Hugh Robjohns]

I think it's a matter of scale and required features, really.

A laptop and interface is a lot smaller and lighter than most hardware multitrack options when it comes to high track counts. I have a SADiE LRX with 16 mic preamps built in and an extra 16 digital inputs (to use with external preamps). 32-track recording in the footprint of a laptop is hard to beat. This system also allows simultaneous playback and recording (ie, overdubbing), test edits on location and much more besides....

On the other hand, where I only need a few channels (8 or less), with no simultaneous playback or overdubbing requirements, a portable solid-state or HD recorder is definitely the better way to go... and for that role I now use a Nagra VI (becuase I've always wanted one) but one of the Zoom F models would be just as good....

H

[CS70]

The point with newer versions (not all, of course; but many) is that they bring tangible benefits...

It's a balance of risks: what's more important to me and my business/hobby?

What I was thinking of, was the competitive edge that these benefits give you as an user. Say, if my competitor can run Melodyne and I cannot, Britney will chose him Everytime and I will lose big time.

Obviously as a business/hobbyist one takes a risk, as you say - but it often is a calculated one. I'd misread your statement as castigating a whimsical decision.

But in the meantime the old desk did what it was designed to do, reliably, and we accepted that.

Imagine the chaos if we came into the studio one morning with a hacksaw and a soldering iron and decided to 'upgrade' it by adding six new aux sends to each channel and revamp the EQ. Would we expect the venerable old desk to still be reliable? I don't think so.... and computers aren't all that different from that (slightly tongue-in-cheek) parallel.

Hehe yeah, but that's a bit of the thing - computers are general purpose machines, to a degree that no other machine invented has ever come close. It's not a case that the theoretical model is called universal turing machine.

That makes hacksawing a much more reasonable proposition. And there's the rub - if your competitors can add six channels relatively simply and you decide not to, you may end up put yourself at a disadvantage. So there's a strong incentive to take the risk (and the pain).

A very relevant example nowadays is the use of big data analysis by any large company. You just got to do it, since your competitors do it and, if it works, give them an immense edge on who doesn't. Over the last ten years computers - once only a tool for most businesses - have become an integral part of the business: you simply cannot withstand the competition (whether you sell clothes, food or whatever) if you don't use them. A similar change has occurred in audio.

Not a big deal, just I find the process fascinating, where it applies to Target or the studios moving from tape to hard disks..

[Bob Bickerton]

Whilst I also subscribe to this approach, nevertheless, Hugh's comment stands. What you've described is someone making a choice to change, not because the system they had didn't work, but because they wanted improvements. Which is, of course, exactly how you'd work in the analogue world. You'd replace gear, that you wanted to improve.

This thread has taken an interesting turn. Everyone will take a different approach, but for me what's come out of this is that people running complex systems, with a broad range of software/plugins that may be sensitive to OS updates, may consider ring fencing their recording computer.

Recording wise, I pretty much only use Logic on a Mac with UAD hardware/software. UAD are very cautious about upgrades, but tend to come out with a fully compatible system 3 to 4 months after an OS release.

Bob

[Drew Stephenson]

There are times when I am very glad of the simplicity of my set up.

And then I read the latest issue of SoS...

[ManFromGlass]

slight left turn into creative land here -
I don't know how many times inspiration has smacked me in the head but by the time I got the software ready to record, headphone levels set (I record alone) and other related tweaks I'm lucky if I can remember the original idea and how to play it with the fire that originally got me excited.
I wouldn't want to ever go back but the 4 track cassette recorder made it much simpler to get the idea to tape. Perhaps a hardware device is better for those like me without the discipline to ignore all the bells and whistles of recording setup a DAW offers. Good thread this.

[ConcertinaChap]

Actually, even when doing normal recording I can't be having with spending ages setting up a project when the person I'm recording says, "Right, that's that song done, let's move onto the next". The answer, of course, is templates (I assume your DAW does templates). I've got templates for most situations I encounter and it takes just seconds to start Logic, select a template and record. So why not just create a template fine tuned for inspiration?

CC

[Drew Stephenson]

At the ideas stage I don't use a proper set up at all, just slap my phone in a bracket and video it. This also means that I don't spend a load of time doing something properly when a critical ear a couple of weeks later tells me it's not up to much.

[ManFromGlass]

smacks forehead - thanks CC, the too obvious answer is to have a template for each mic/pre combo I have so then it's just figgering the tempo, mute the monitors and hit record on Logic control on the iPad.
Blinddrew- good idea too except sometimes I will play something I will never be able to play again! I am the master of no instrument and sometimes the fingers surprise me.