max ram 4 the 2000xl?

TheScore wrote:am looking forward 2 having a working flash card reader & a usb connection already installed on the 2500!

I understand now.

juswt adding my 2 pence worth. I think the limited sample time of the 2000xl is pretty bad. Yes i know there are a few tricks that we can use to optomize sample time. ie sampling at a higher pitch, trimming the samples down before saving them etc.

But all of this slows down creativity.

I like to be able to load up a stack of samples and sounds at the same time then just browse my sounds as i work.

I found with 2000xl loading samples was slow, very very slow and i could not open up large libraries of sounds. I basically would sample on the computer then save to my cf card. put the card into the mpc and open up the files.

as im loading the files im just watching the free memory just dissapearing lol.

I have also got a 1000 and in regards to memory what a beast that is. 128mb of memory (upgraded using third party memory, hell of a lot cheaper than akais memory upgrade). It does give me the flexibility of having stacks of programs open. If i start working on something and i aint feeling the samples i dont have to start loading more samples i just change to another program or mix and matych sounds from different programs.

Loading the files to the 1000 is less long winded, just plug in the usb and off i go.

I aint saying the 2000xl is rubbish, i hav both the 2000xl and the 1000, the 2000xl my first.

I basically use my 1000 as a sampler and trigger the pads via midi from the 2000xl. The pads and screen are so much better on the 2000xl.

The 2500 seems to be a combination of the 2 machines but for the ultimate sample time the 4000 is the ultimate machine. 512mb sample timeand even faster cpu, that is the real stand alone machine. you could pretty much pack its memory up with stacks of sound and never see that insufficient memory crap come up.

I feel in terms of memory, the 2000xl is kind of getting left behind, i know everyone is producing great things with these memory limitations but that does not hide the fact that more is better in terms of memory.

I know this sounds like a review of these machines but i am specifically adressing the memory issue expressed at the begining of this post.

Will it ever be possible to get larger memory capacity on the 2000xl.


one more thing

A standard 16mb stick of edo is the same size as 64mb of edo.

16MB 72PIN EDO SIMM - 4K refresh, 8 chips, 60ns, non-parity, 5V, 1.0", tin leads ($10.00)

64MB 72pin EDO SIMM - 4K refresh, 8 chips, 60ns, tin leads ($14.00)

Surely if the memory is the same then an os upgrade would enable the mpc to adress the additional memory?

Anyone got any idea why this would not be feasible?

Sorry for the long post but i think if you got the time it makes an interesting read.

wasnt shue if this would warrent a seperate post but feel free to repost if you feel its in the wrong place.

^^^I have never even come close to filling my 32MB up. What the hell are you sampling, 4 bar loops?

Like I said on futureproducers.com

Originally posted by kontak80
To put the MPC 2000XL's 32 MB capacity into perspective.....


The average sample = 50 kilobytes

There are 1,000 kilobytes in 1 MB

So in essence, 32 MB of RAM = over 600 kicks, snares, hats, stabs, loops , whatever else!!!






So...you need more RAM because?????





LMAO "Da MV-8000 has 512 MB of RAM"

Da hell you tryin to sample? "Schindler's List" the movie.... not the soundtrack

lol

Eddie Kain wrote:So in essence, 32 MB of RAM = over 600 kicks, snares, hats, stabs, loops , whatever else!!!

So...you need more RAM because?????


LMAO "Da MV-8000 has 512 MB of RAM"

Da hell you tryin to sample? "Schindler's List" the movie.... not the soundtrack

LMFAO...... People don't know how to manage their ram AND are sampling way too big AND are not using the RAM what it was meant for..

well...i think both visions are right...
and, most of all...the mpc being suited mostly for hip hop \ rnb beats its surely ok with the 32 mb...but....
i produce breakcore,a genre where samples cutups and mashups are fundameental...
and,most of all, i bought the mpc basically to perform live controllin my other gear, well in this case the 32mb ram are not that much if u havent any other sampler (well, i have an akai s950 but hehehe u know, thats a great machine but only 750 kb) and u plan to perform for at least one hour, one hour and a half....
anyway im really happy with my mpc...id think twice before swappin it with a newer mpc model...a choice should be buyn another sampler....maybe an akai z something....

No doubt ^^^^

If I was a gigging producer and actually performed with an MPC, Id go with a 1000 or 2500. You could program your entire show into one of those newer ones. But as a studio-use only machine, the 2000xl is my heart. It took some influencing from Smoove, but the xl aint going no where! Im at work now thinking about the muhfugga!

Reading some of the responses i think maybe some peeps are missing the whole point.

If 32mb is all we need, why can you upgrade the 4000 to 512mb ram?

Why can the 1000 be upgraded to 128mb.

If this much memory is not neccesary why have the 1000, 2500, 4000 models all got much larger memory capacities.

The whol point i am trying to get at is that if i want to sample 4 bar loops and lots of them and the whole schinderlers list soundtrack and a a few more epic soundtracks with 32 mb of ram, that just aint going to happen.

Its all about giving the end user choice and not restricting them with 32mb of ram.

Remeber its not a question of how you have maximized the usage of memory and made your samples as small as possible etc, its all about making music.

I dont want to have to think about memory consumption, i just want to be able to get on with making music and sampling without thinking 32mb is the max.

I do not have a problem with there only being 32mb on the 2000xl because i also own a 1000 so i have got a lot of memory to play with but i am coming at you from the point of a consumer. I am using the 2000xl basically as a midi triggering device and using its sequencer so sampletime is not a problem to me any more but there are im sure many people who are using just the 2000 and have had to spend time ensuring they fit their music in with these constraints.

I think that akai should develope a way that 2000 owners can upgrade to larger memory capacities. As i said prieviosly, physically the memory is the same in terms of size and adress frequency, it must just be the internal software of the mpc that is stopping bigger memory capacities being adressed.

But very intresting opinions i have read.

oh and one more thing, i always got lots to say, but i bet if akai released an add on on software upgrade that enables you to upgrade to 128mb everyone who is happy or making do with 32mb would jump up and buy that add on or upgrade.

net3dom wrote:oh and one more thing, i always got lots to say, but i bet if akai released an add on on software upgrade that enables you to upgrade to 128mb everyone who is happy or making do with 32mb would jump up and buy that add on or upgrade.

And you would lose that bet, my friend.

Why would I waste my money on that? If I don't need more memory, why would I get it? Maybe if I didn't have my PC to multitrack into, I would need to upgrade the memory to be able to record vocals on the MPC, but since I have never used more than 7 or 8 MB on a beat, why would I need more than 32?

To answer your question about why the new systems have more RAM. Because they are newer. Because they can make the machines have more RAM for less cost, so why not? Because all the people out there that can't figure out how to chop or want to make music Puffy style with 4 bar loops were b!tching and whining about memory limitations, so in order to keep competitive, manufacturers had to cater to those people.

Now, I'm not talking sh!t about you, I understand that playing live you need more RAM, but you gotta understand that the MPC wasn't designed as a performance piece of hardware. I would get a 1000 for live gigs. It's hella portable compared to the rest, and it's got 4x as much RAM as the 2000xl.

I'd upgrade the memory if the 2000xl could handle it. I don't use loops for anything but I do enjoy having tons of samples loaded up.

mrcrappypantson wrote:I'd upgrade the memory if the 2000xl could handle it. I don't use loops for anything but I do enjoy having tons of samples loaded up.

Thats one of the things im getting at.

When i switch on my mpc i dont really have a set idea as to what im gonna do or what sounds i want to use and what if any samples i want to use. By having a large library of sounds loaded up in memory i can experiment with a lot more different sounds.



In nregards to manufacturing costs etc,

"Why would I waste my money on that? If I don't need more memory, why would I get it? Maybe if I didn't have my PC to multitrack into, I would need to upgrade the memory to be able to record vocals on the MPC, but since I have never used more than 7 or 8 MB on a beat, why would I need more than 32?"

I bought my mpc at the end of last year, the cost of memory has fallen dramatically over the past 5 years so the cost of larger ram last year would have been about $20.

Anotherr thought is that if the facilty was there and you took it it would open new techniques and different approaches in music making.

I just feel that akai are not really bothering to further the developement of the 2000xl.

I am almost sure that an os upgrade could resolve the memory issue. I agree perhaps some users may not have use for larger memory capacities but for some users it would be a much welcomed upgrade feature.

Perhaps if were lucky somebody at akai will read this and see both sides of the coin and at least give us the choice to be able to upgrade our memory further if we want to.

Its better to have the option and not use than not to have the option at all.

Take the effects board and the 8 outs option, i have neither of them because my sound sources are the triton and the samples i have loaded on the 1000 being fed into the mixer but if i did feel the need for the 8 outs or effects then i have the option to add a couple of boards and access these features.

Would be intresting to know how many users would like better memory expansion options and why.

Any comments ladies and gentlemen.

hey net3dom , i totally agree with ya on both studio and live fronts...
but lemme tell ya...hopin that akai will make the 2k upgradable is pure fairy tale...

they r businessmen...so if they ever put up a memory expansion upgrade for the 2k, how the hell they will persuade 2k ownerz to swap to a 4k, or 2500, or even 1k?

its a sad world
(plus im not really sure if the thing is technically possible or affordable with a reasonable price)

(maybe im too cynical, well mr akai developer, i hope im wrong)

Hey, at last someone not so close minded.

On the technical front, the technology interms of memory shouldnt really be a problem.

The specs of 16mb ram and a stick of 64mb are the same.

Both are a type of memory called EDO and run at the same operating speed are physically the same in size and the contacts are the same.

The thing that i feel would be the limiting factor is the OS as it probably wouldnt recognise the memory because when it requests its cappacity it is not going to get the correct response and therefore will not accept the memory.

This could be worked around by updateing the OS software so that it could address larger capacity memory.

Take the MPC 1000, if you installed the HDM10 kit and a hard drive, no matter what the capacity of the hard drive was, it would only recognize a maximum of 2gb.

Im sure a lot of 2000xl owners would say that wasnt neccessary. **** dat shit lol. Akai did the right thing and updated the OS and enabled it to address the full capacity of the hard disk you installed.

It is possible i think and for a low low cost.

it would be nice for live performances and i would be surprised if some day a non akai programmer made an os upgrade to do it. i'm just not counting on that anytime soon.