Chopping by ear workflow - compared to Maschine?

I'm looking at picking up an XL I'm looking for a bit of info on how you chop by hand.
With Maschine you can load a sample to a pad, go the trim menu, set the start point, copy to the next pad without leaving the trim menu, and then set a new start point for that pad.

Chopping by ear like this was a breeze. Is this kind of flow possible with the 2kxl?
Or will I be diving in an out of menus?

Have checked the manual and while it explains all the processes, I can't get my head around how it all works together and the flow will feel.

I know an MPC isn't software, but when I used one it still had a lot of menus.

With Maschine, you can set different Trim points for the same sound file on each pad, which makes chopping up a sample by ear really quick.

It looks like the 2KXL can only have one set of start points for each sound file, so to do what I described in the first post means duplicating the sound, setting new trim points and then assigning the new sound to the next pad. Which is long.

Like I say though, it's quite difficult to work out the workflow from the manual...

yes one sample can only have one set of start end points, but there is a feature called 'zone' that gives you up to 16 contiguous zones. you can then with one button convert all of these to new samples.

that's one way.

the other way is to go into a sample, set the start and end points, then 'section->new sound'. this will then bring you to the new sound, so you have to scroll back to the original - this is not a big deal but i am guessing this is the kind of 'workflow' you were talking about.

so at most you are going into one menu (section->new sound), and then scrolling back to the original sample. if you are using the zone, it will create zones in equal sizes so you have to go adjust the start points, if you want, but then its just one button press for a whole set of new samples.

now, my own personal commentary: once you get good at it you can be SUPER fast with it. i was going through editing a ton of samples the other night, and i thought, there is no way i could do this this fast on a computer cause id be spending half my time loading up new files, and moving the mouse all over the screen. with the mpc its reduced to all key commands which are handy cause they are right there and your hand never has to move very far. also the number keys are always accessible, and once you get a feel for how the numbers correspond to things, you can go immediately to where you want.
again, that is not something that will be apparently obvious. an mpc (especially the older ones) are professional pieces of equipment, and you really need to know what you are doing and spend time with it before you get good at it.

second, if you are coming from maschine looking to 'replace it' with an mpc, you're barking up the wrong tree. personally, i think these 'comparison' questions are just totally outlandish. maschine is cool, mpcs are cool, but a 1998 sampler is not going to replace a computer.

if you want to get an mpc, get it with the idea of adapting to it, not forcing it to adapt to your 2011 notions of how to produce music. for me, it was a breath of fresh air to completely change my way of working from computer trackers to a hardware sampler. i didn't get my mpc to replace my software+controllers, i got it because it WASN'T any of those things. and i never looked back :].

big thanks tapedeck, that's exactly what i was after.
sounds like zones will work for me nicely.

and i hear your secondary points too, an MPC is an MPC, but i wanted to know what i'm getting into with it.

the thing i liked about maschine was that it was nothing like a computer, it was totally hands on and you hardly looked at a menu, let alone the computer screen. the mouse was totally redundant.

and i started looking at the MPC because it's self contained, rock solid / latency free and sounds good.
and apparently with a bit of work will be just as hands on to work with, so worth the time and effort to get to know.

muckleby wrote:with a bit of work will be just as hands on to work with, so worth the time and effort to get to know.

real talk

Buddha bless you......(monk bows his head).

Tape Deck nailed it on what he said about not being able to chop as quick on computer, When I first got my 2000XL (wasnt even that long ago) It felt long and that things took ages to load... but now I'm the blind samurai on some fast shit... I tried to chop a sample in Recycle and was mad at it ready to punch it and do it on the 2000XL! I think you'll be happy with the 2000XL but then again I'm not you so i couldnt be 100%

Personally, 2000XL's Zone edit mode is kinda useless. The zone edit parameters cannot be saved, and if you go to other samples accidentally, all the work would be gone!
I'd use "Section -> New sound", or just make duplicate of the samples, change start & end point, then trim the samples later.
ASR-10 can non-destructive chop. It would've been nice if it was available to MPC-2000XL.

JVC wrote: It would've been nice if it was available to MPC-2000XL.

the same 'non-destructive chop' that the asr has IS available in the 2000 by setting your velocity to control sample start.
if you use 16 levels then youve got 16 'chops' non destructively laid out.
it's crude but it works.

tapedeck wrote:

JVC wrote: It would've been nice if it was available to MPC-2000XL.

the same 'non-destructive chop' that the asr has IS available in the 2000 by setting your velocity to control sample start.
if you use 16 levels then youve got 16 'chops' non destructively laid out.
it's crude but it works.

I know, but it is more like workaround. Not very intuitive, because you can't set the exact start points (although you get 127 different start points), plus you'll have to settle with one volume setting.

I never thought non-destructive sample editing is big deal, since MPC2000XL has pretty big sample time to deal with.
But now I think that it is less to do with sample memory saving, but it would've been a big workflow improvement for XL users, because it is less work for computer to deal with just parameters, so it would've give XL users faster workflow. I wonder why this was not implemented on MPCs (JJOS excluded, JJ is brilliant!)

it's definitely not the most advanced feature of the machine, but it is there in a small, useful way.