Does The Classic Have Only One Drum Slot?

Is it true that although the XL can use 4 programs in a sequence by using the 4 Drum slots, the Classic can only use one program in a sequence because it doesn’t have the drum slots?

yeah

mr_debauch wrote:yeah

It’s strange you don’t hear more about that being a major difference, whenever the two machines are being compared. Maybe it’s to do with the different ways people work, but for me I like to make a lot of drum kits and multisampled instruments in the XL, and save them as programs. Not being able to just bring a ready made kit or multisample in to a project and use it with whatever your working on in the Classic seems like it makes the two machines entirely different in the workflow you need to adopt. But the difference between them is often described as minor.

Any workarounds for this in the Classic?

because that difference is minor compared to the other differences.

even if you had that ability, saving all that becomes an issue when there is no atapi (IDE) port, so any saving is either done using the floppy port (drive or emulator) or via SCSI... which means your best method of saving is using a SCSI memory card adapter (SCSI to SD type of thing) then, once you have that sorted, everything must be saved on the root of a partition, because unlike the 2000xl, the 2000 classic does not see folders (directories) ... so if you make 4 drum programs, you must make sure to save every file with a unique name to avoid conflicts since everything will be saved in the same place.

personally, i use the classic very conservatively. I tend to sample in mono as much as possible.. the files are half the size that way. I do not leave unused samples in projects. I chop tight, truncate everything you can and find other ways to fill in gaps between sample triggers. old mpcs like the 2000 classic is not the machine in my opinion where you load up sample libraries to browse through sounds.

That being said, making beats with those restrictions are a big contributor to the sound of the machine IMO... you use less sample content and try to compensate using other features of the machine.. mono samples, but use the panning to create your own stereo spread.. if you have the effects card it really helps too. There is no time stretch like on the 2000xl, so you might need to try and use the pitch tuning a bit to lengthen samples a bit more than you would on the xl. there is no auto chop on the classic, so you will have to use zone edit and manually pick your cuts... i suggest using the zones, then go to create new sample for each cut so you can take everything you want from a longer recording and then delete it after you are done to free up memory.

mr_debauch wrote:because that difference is minor compared to the other differences.

even if you had that ability, saving all that becomes an issue when there is no atapi (IDE) port, so any saving is either done using the floppy port (drive or emulator) or via SCSI... which means your best method of saving is using a SCSI memory card adapter (SCSI to SD type of thing) then, once you have that sorted, everything must be saved on the root of a partition, because unlike the 2000xl, the 2000 classic does not see folders (directories) ... so if you make 4 drum programs, you must make sure to save every file with a unique name to avoid conflicts since everything will be saved in the same place.

personally, i use the classic very conservatively. I tend to sample in mono as much as possible.. the files are half the size that way. I do not leave unused samples in projects. I chop tight, truncate everything you can and find other ways to fill in gaps between sample triggers. old mpcs like the 2000 classic is not the machine in my opinion where you load up sample libraries to browse through sounds.

That being said, making beats with those restrictions are a big contributor to the sound of the machine IMO... you use less sample content and try to compensate using other features of the machine.. mono samples, but use the panning to create your own stereo spread.. if you have the effects card it really helps too. There is no time stretch like on the 2000xl, so you might need to try and use the pitch tuning a bit to lengthen samples a bit more than you would on the xl. there is no auto chop on the classic, so you will have to use zone edit and manually pick your cuts... i suggest using the zones, then go to create new sample for each cut so you can take everything you want from a longer recording and then delete it after you are done to free up memory.

I disagree. I consider it a MAJOR difference. THE major difference. But I love floppies. Floppies are my folder system. That’s all I need. I can easily fit my programs on a floppy.

I just think it should be more often pointed out as THE major difference in the workflow between the two machines.

Is not the sound the major difference?
Just asking...

Lazarillo wrote:I just think it should be more often pointed out as THE major difference in the workflow between the two machines.

He literally pointed that all out in the post that you just sh*t on.

jzurd0 wrote:Is not the sound the major difference?
Just asking...

no, they sound the same...

just to list a few differences even though most are already known:

-the jog wheel: the 2000 classic has the outer ring to change numerals in the trim menu... the 2000xl has an acceleration (gear shift) the longer and quicker you spin the wheel... and when that isn't fast enough, the 2000xl has the trick where you hold shift and move the note variation slider to jump large amounts.

-the IDE port (internal port) this opens the door to inexpensive CF card readers for the 2000xl, which are not compatible with the 2000 classic. this was a huge deal back in the day, maybe less so these days because everything is expensive either way. when i upgraded my first XL to the CF reader, the card reader cost me $0.99 with free shipping on ebay. I suspect those days are done. (I already had the IDE ribbon cable at home)

-folder support... very nice because you can save projects in a folder on a memory card... only the contents of that beat will get saved in there... also, you can have drum sounds and stuff saved in a folder on the card to load up if you wanted to. The 2000 classic takes more work... you can only make so many partitions on a hard drive or scsi device, and you can't use folders... so you really need to try you best to give every sound you ever make a unique name. it's highly recommended that you keep the names under 8 characters, even if the mpc will allow up to 16. this helps avoid issues when you take the storage device and plug it somewhere else like a computer for example.

-the tilt screen VS the wedge body... both are fine in my opinion... but with the wedge body of the 2000 classic, you might find yourself holding shift and adjusting the jog wheel a bit more often compared to the 2000xl (which adjusts the contrast by the way)

-the drum programs... yes the 2000xl has drum 1 through 4... it can load 4 different programs at the same time. that is great, but most of the time you don't use all 64 pads of a drum program in one single beat.... so the workaround on the classic is to load up the desired sounds from other programs you have saved on disks individually... then assign them to one of your 64 pads. ALSO, I really like how on the 2000 classic you can go into the shift+program menu (when you are on your way to the params screen) and you don't need to click f1 drum1 every single time.... that is quite annoying on the 2000xl.

-time stretch.... okay, not to be used like it's elastique or some ableton thing.... but if you sampled a break or loaded some one shot drums.... sometimes it's nice to lengthen the crash sounds or the drums sounds in general to fill in the gaps a bit better... that is a really nice feature on the 2000xl. it isn't amazing for everything, but if you take a little pinch of every feature the machine can do, it adds up to something really unique sounding.

-resample. yeah, i mean... it isn't that important of a feature.... which is exactly what you are going to say after you see how long it takes to finish. I know i am not alone when i admit... i used that feature once... never dared to use it again. when i say it takes forever, it takes forever.

-the placement of the boards in the machine, and the way to access the interior. the 2000xl has a plate under the machine where you undo a few screws and you are right at the motherboard. the 2000 classic doesn't have that.... you need to unscrew the top (beige) case and dig your way down to the main board.... however that is rarely done.

-autochop, segment chopping... i know some people like trimming perfectly truncated loops, or loading up loopmaster type loops... that is great, you can choost 8 or 16 divisions and bam, you have everything perfectly chopped so you can record a sequence going 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 on the pads. I never liked that feature personally... i don't use it on any of the newer MPCS either. I prefer the zone edit trim on the classic... or doing pretty much that exact thing on the XL.... i like sampling sounds earlier than the target and leaving air or space in the front on the pad... it makes it sound a bit looser and less mechanical once the sequence is made.

- the midi note event amount. the 2000xl has triple the sequencer capacity compared to the 2000 classic. this will never come up as an issue when you are sequencing the pads... however, it might if you have for example a VA synth and you are recording things like filter sweeps into the MPC sequencer via midi. if you reach the capacity, it will act like it does when you max polyphony.. the newest event cuts off the oldest or you hear muting of the effect.. actually, i can't say that for sure on the 2000classic, because that has only happened to me on some of my mpc 60 beats. I am sure it acts the same though, what else would it do?

there are more differences... i can't think of any really worth mentioning though... nobody really cares anymore about how the 2000classic uses a shorter ribbon cable between the mainboard and the LCD display, which only came up when you wanted to cannibalize a screen for the 2000xl but it wasn't long enough because of the tilt screen housing.

Very useful summary...