2000 vs 2000XL SOUND

MrDismal wrote:Is that you JJG?

edit

Personally I'd go for the Xl because of of the ease and low price of fitting a C.F card reader and it's ability to make folders.
Storage on the non xl 2000 can be a bit of a pain.
I doubt the difference in sound is much at all, pretty much sound like whatever sound you put into them.
They are both samplers after all

I have the 2000 Classic and I personally love it. I have an external scsi card reader that I can easily put sounds into it and load it up into the mpc. It does take a longer process to do things that the XL can do easily but if you don't mind that, the classic will do just fine. One thing I absolutely love about the classic has to be the jog wheel. As far as sound, in my opinion, the classic I feel does have a warmer and vintage sort've sound. It really depends on what you prefer. I never tried an XL, so I can't really compare the sound or anything like that but from what I know about the classic, it does get the job done.

Awsome!! U guys are all bomb af thanks!

I'd skip the 2000 and go straight to the XL, much better OS with more features, better disk support, better file support, tilting screen etc. They both sound good, so a non-issue IMO.

hok-2 wrote:Personally I'd go for the Xl because of of the ease and low price of fitting a CF card reader and it's ability to make folders.
Storage on the non xl 2000 can be a bit of a pain.

I sold my MPC-2000 and replaced with MPC-2000XL, mainly for that reason.

hok-2 wrote:I doubt the difference in sound is much at all, pretty much sound like whatever sound you put into them.
They are both samplers after all

I’m still not convinced that MPC-2000 and MPC2000XL sound different (I think this topic has been discussed a lot already.) They share a lot of same components, and I had owned both (I still own XL.)

Raudy wrote:so to conclude, regardless whether the 2000 xl or classic, they will def both b more vintage n punchy than a 1000 for sure no?!

no. i doubt you'd even be able to tell the difference.

honestly if yer using a 1000, i wouldnt even bother downgrading to an xl.

if 'crunch' is really what you care about, you'd be looking at a 60/3000/s950 or something.

the difference between 2000/xl/1000 is not worth changing one for the other...they're too close.

MPC-Tutor wrote:I'd skip the 2000 and go straight to the XL, much better OS with more features, better disk support, better file support, tilting screen etc. They both sound good, so a non-issue IMO.

Perfect!!! Thankyou mpc tutor! Ur the mann!! I cant wait to get to work on an XL.

I own the 1000 and the XL, I can def tell you the main difference I hear between the two is the low pass filter. The LPF on the XL is dope!! The one of the 1000 is not near as good. So my main workhorse is the XL and use my 1000 when I travel for beats on the road.

thts a great setup! im tryna do something liek that and thankyou btw

Any difference in sound between the blue xl n grey xl or is it just the cf card reader difference. I only ask cuhz i like the idea of the cf card. But i know theyre five years apart in production.

Imho... both are the same ... but... I never owned a 2000. I only used my friends 2000 frequently side by side with my XL.
Now if you asked if the MPC3000 vs ASR-10 vs MPC2000XL had a difference in sound and I would say "Yes they all do". This due to the circuitry on each sampler.
And yes I have all 3 samplers.

JUKE 179r wrote:Imho... both are the same ... but... I never owned a 2000. I only used my friends 2000 frequently side by side with my XL.
Now if you asked if the MPC3000 vs ASR-10 vs MPC2000XL had a difference in sound and I would say "Yes they all do". This due to the circuitry on each sampler.
And yes I have all 3 samplers.

so i should just go for the blue xl then no? since its got the cf. n u said theres no difference so it makes sense no? thanks btw man

Lmao thanks everyone! Sorry for my old silly posts