MPC 2000XL Sampler vs. MPC3000, MPC 60

Don't get me worng, I love my 2000XL but I rec'd sounds from a MPC3000 that my friend owned in wav format and all though they don't sound hollow, they definitely are missing something. It's like they have no bottom end. No presence.

When I heard them loaded on his 3000 it sounded awesome. When loaded into my 2000XL they sounded..well......flat.

Why is this so? Is there a way around this without resampling through a bunch of outboard gear? The EQ on my Mackie 1402VLZPRO just doesn't cut it.

Let me explain...

There are many reasons as to why you and many other 2000xl users are experiencing this problem...they are as follow:

1) you dont have the 'MPC 3000'.

let me expand. firstly you need to understand the differences in old and new technology.

basically the mpc 3000 was developed around 1993/4 after the mpc 60's range.

back then all the A/D converter chips (although all say 16-bit stereo this that and the other) were 'Analogue' stereo.

today...(meaning the 2000/xl, etc) all AD chips are based on 16 Bit Stereo digital.

Analogue carries a deeper lower end signal...resulting in a phatter sound.
Digital signals carry a more clinical sound but very flat and tinny at the same time.

a perfect example of this is Vinyls VS CD's...

a Vinyl record sounds alot more deeper in lower end than cd's.
Cds tend to sound enhanced and tinny.

and this is a fact...go and ask any Dj and you'll have your answer.

back to the mpc 2000/xl Vs 3000 (in terms of Which one sounds Phatter)...all i can say is that the Mpc 3000 will always sound fuller at the bottom end due to its analogue components internally. i know this because i have spoken to some UK based sound engineers. thats that...its a fact.

basically those who know...'Know'...trust me.

ok 2) What speakers (monitors) and Amplifier does your friend use...this can make a slight difference also. basically if your speakers and amplifier aint too hot, then you may be suffering this 'sounds flat to me' problem even more than you should have to.

cheap amplifiers also carry less low end frequencies as i personally know of this.

i my self use a pair of Alesis Monitor 1'a MK2's with a Alesis R300 Amplifier.

basically this is the bottom end stuff.

my brother has a couple of Crown and Crest Audio (serious highend stuff...$1000's and 1000's) amplifiers for his PA Profession. i have used one of his Crest amps with my Alesis monitors and have noticed a much deeper sound (you can hear the difference straight away...from crap to the best).

so this plays a major role too...

3) but as a solution...i too have a Mackie 1402 Vlz and feel that the low freq eq is excellent and makes a huge difference through my speaker setup...yours may be a different story altogether.

you could try re-recording your samples as i sometimes do using the low eq on the mackie, as well as software plugins (i use Logic Audio)...that really phattens the samples up. i can get my kicks to bang like the neptunes.

EQ, Compression, Envelopes and Attacks, etc...it always works.

So there you go... i hope you now understand why the 3000 sounds different (its a pure old and new technology understanding)...you win some you loose some.

like they say 'things aint made the way they used to be'...and i agree!!!

so dont bother asking anyone else...and to be honest most people dont even have the technical capacity to even think on this level...

just trust me on this one.

just try my work around as mentioned above.

good luck.

ohhhhhhhh, mane, not this sh1t again......

Yep, this topic has been done to death on these forums. Please use the search function before posting this stuff - we get the same old replies.

BTW, this is the first time I've ever heard anyone refer to a Mackie VLZ eq as 'excellent'! It's go to be one of the worst eqs in the business - trust me, that's that - it's a fact - LOL!

Mackies have a very good quality audio path, signal to noise ratio etc - but the eq well and truely stinks

Going to lock this topic, as I cant face the idea another sound quality debate...