fatten up 2k sound

Is the difference in sound between the 2k en 3k really that big?
If so, what's the easiest way to achieve the same kind of thick sound on the 2k. And on stage, is the difference really noticeable?

It's just the quality of the samples that u put in. On stage I would probably run it through a hardware parametric eq to fatten/warm up the sound.

Yeah, man. There is a big difference in the sounds. Every sampler has different converters. The converters exist at the input for sampling (analog-to-digital converters, called A-to-D), and at the stereo, headphone, and indiviual outputs (D-to-A conversion). The ones on the 2000 & 2000XL are 'cleaner' than the 3000. The 3000 is older, and at the time it was pretty high quality. However, it is not 16 bit. The lower the bit rate, the less the sampled soudnwave is correctly modeled. Therefore, the sample will have spaces between stepped incraments of the wave. Those gaps come out like a gritty noise thats only noticeble as overall wuality. Like when you download a really bad MP3, you can hear the low sample rate. But a machine with higher quality, old school converters will sound 'gritty' rather than bad. And each type of algorithm, or math that they use to design thier sampling engine, has it's particular charictaristics as well. So while the 2000 and XL have a higher sample rate, their converters and algorithms are a bit harsh and tinny. The bandwidth, or how much it can capture, is 44.1. Thats 44,100 samples per-second-just like a CD. However, the algorithm they use is lacking as compared to say, 44.1 inside the ASR series. With the 3000, you can't capture as much detail in the high end, but they have a warmer, chunkier sound. The bottom line is, you will do fine with either. Those are the major differences. When you factor in the fact that the 2000 and XL models are better for chopping up samples (they have waveform display, rather than the 3000's 'numbers only' style), you may want to go with one of the newer joints. On the other hand, the 3000 does sound a little better, and is built a little tougher. I can't really accomplish what I like on the 3000 as fast, but it's all personal preferance. The 2000XL has a resampling screen, where you can choose 16, 12, or 8 bits, choose your bandwidth by the number (!!) and even high, medium and low quality. The resampler is alot of trial and error, because when you make less samples in the wave (ie: 8 instead of 16 bit), the sound gets longer, because it's playing at a slower sample speed. So then, you have to time stretch it to be a little shorter again. A little tedious, but you can really reacreate classic sampleer sounds if your nice with yours.

To get that 3000 sound from my 2000, there's 4 things you can do. You can do these in combination, on alone. So here they are in order of complexity:

1) basic filter- I usually take the filter down 5 or 10 points, then raise the resonance just a hair, maybe 1 or 2. Experiment.

2) EQ- Come into the board as hot as you can without peaking (always a good rule) to keep it warmer. You can eq each output, or stereo mix if you don't have the outputs. Roll off the high end to get rid of everything above 20K, then back down slowly so you can get rid of that chinsy high end, but without muffling the samples. Experiment. When I'm on stage without a mixer, I use my effects chip in the 2000. Theres an eq section, and I often use this to grit out my samples. In efx routing, turn everything down but eq/mod, and don't use the mod. THen lower the stereo mix to zero on those samples you processed, so the Multi-efx is the only thing coming out for those samples. then you get 100% eq'd sound.

3) Outboard processing- Whether you go stereo, multi-out or whatever, alot of cats like to process thier samples. You can do this in a variety of ways. To accomplish a 3000 type sound, you could put a SanSamp box or a quality tube compressor between the MPC2000 outputs and your mixer or output device. This will dirty the sound, but be subtle; you don't want it to distort and sound like junk, you just want to warm it. Again, experiment.

Many cats will tell you they process with outboard gear or a computer BEFORE they put it into the MPC. This is a great technique, and if your good at it, can save mix time later and help build a thicker sound. 2 things to consider though: If you process before you mix, you can't undo what you did. So, you can screw yourself. Also, you will still have some tinniness and harshness on the overall samples when they play out of the 2000 and XL anyway, so you still may have to filter, etc. afterward.

REAL LONG AS USUAL, BUT I HOPE IT MAKES ALOT OF SENSE
Good Luck

dont wanna start this again, but there is no magic sound of the 3000. MPC 3000 has actually opened them all up and cheked the guts out extensivly, Id defer to him on this one, he and elmanco got into it in another thread, and mpc 3000 "prevailed" (for lack of a better word) PM him and ask him.

Ive done the test, (load samples into a 3000 and 2000, same samples, and have person turn back, play sample and ask them to ID the 2000 or 3000, nobody gets even close to 10/10) and I'd say there is no magic groove. But that is just me and a couple other foo's, this debate will go on as long as MPC's are used at all I think......

i think it all comes down to how you're hearing the comparison, the only reason why I athought that the 3k sounded different was cuz I never had the means until recently to try them out side by side on the same sound system.....of course one is going to sound different than the other when you're hearing one on one sound system and one ran thru someone elses mixer in their bedroom....I agree that MPC3000 nailed the explanation for everyone.....Love seeing false truths die hard....

With all due respect to anyone and everyone, there is no difference except maybe the outside chassis. It is a 16bit sampler as is the 2k and 2kxl as stated in the manual and also in another post by MPC3k. I ahve also played with both. I'll leave it alone now, sorry for keeping it going and junk.. One..

I wouldn't even worry about it. I think most people try to compare the basic sound of the MPC to the processed sound that we hear on the TV/radio. Most music nowadays is going through pro-tools, and I've been told that they have some of the best convertors out there. I had a two year old track that I gave to a friend that recorded it through pro-tools, and when he was all done, it really didn't seem like the same track. I was a whole lot beefier when compared to the original, and that's without compression (we have to take it to a full blown studio with a particular plug-in) and no mastering. So don't worry about what a different machine sounds like, because when you get your tracks properly recorded, your gonna be able to fatten up whatever instrument you like without buying the actual equipment.

. ..dyrt.trax. ..

what up roxstar, I am from the D also . Yeah you are right that you can fatten your sounds in Protools , but your converters depend on your hardware most of the time. So for Protools to benefit you , you have to have a good interface to help with sound.....not a digi 001. Peace.