Newbie. Can 4000 be a jack of all trades?

Hey does anybody in this forum record audio like lyrics and hooks and the whole nine in the MPC 4000? Basically does anybody use the MPC 4000 as an all in one box, like making beats, recording audio and then mixing down all in the 4000? My heart really wants to get this box but my brain is telling me to go with the MV-8000 because that is basically what it's made for. After my latest computer crash I really want to get away from software altogether, So that's why I'm looking at these two. The 16 bit sampling in the MV really kills it for me, but it has all the features I'm looking for, where as the 4000 isn't marketed that way, but could probably do the same thing in a different way. I've demoed an MV extensively and love it, but I've never actually seen a 4000 in person, so it would be the blind ebay "hope everything is as good as advertised" route for me. And this is not another MV versus 4000 post. I just want to know if a 4000 can be a full-fledged jack-of -all trades box like the MV is, and how good the quality would be. This is for us guys with the skinny pockets who can't afford to be buying mixing consoles, effects processors, or pro tools rigs on a whim.Thanks

you should look into the MPC1k if you want just beats and basic sequencing. The best part of the MPC is the sequencing interface, it's very unique and tough to replicate, even if other products have pads. The4k is just a beast in the way it can handle large samples and multiple midi instruments with NO latency.

the MPC4k is not meant for mixing down tracks. You'll need either a hard disk recorder or software.

i don't own either, but i am leaning towards an mpc4k having considered the mv8k, but i am also leaning towards a humbler mpc2kxl in conjunction with my existing roland sp808 (nice combo) so all the info below is what i've gleaned in my research it's not from first-hand experience

neither box can truly be a jack of all trades but if it's as many features as possible in one place you are after then i guess the mv8k just pips the mpc4k to the post by virtue of [1] better fx (users rate the fx in the mpc4k from rubbish to useable but bland) [2] dedicated audio phrase recording (note however it is to ram *not* disk so you are limited to the max memory, less existing data, which is officially 512Mb and possibly 1Gb ... however, hold fire, rumour has it the forthcoming mpc4k os may support something similar, if not better, ie audio phrase recording to hard disk, *but* nothing is confirmed yet so wait and see, note also, you can sample to ram on the mpc4k during playback, at a pinch this is a little like audio phrase recording) [3] real-time timestretching/bpm matching stuff, this is big shakes for some folks (altho i have read the algorithms are pretty poor sounding)

that's not the most important bit of the story however. The two differ fundamentally in how they approach sequencing; the mpc4k is pattern based, the mv8k is a linear sequencer, like a computer sequencer. it's worth doing a little research into the differences of these two approaches. the mpc/pattern approach is unique with many fans and it arguably lends itself to certain styles of music by it's very nature, but in comparison with the mv8ks sequencer is has fewer features, if you are expecting the mpc4k to feel like cubase you'll be disappointed

the other consideration is that in terms of connectivity and sampling specifications the mpc4k is simply a more 'professional' machine, ie the mpc4k can do adat, the mv8k does rolands proprietary rbus, and of course 16/44 vs 24/96

but i also think this extends to build quality, i played around with both machines briefly in a music shop. the mpc4k felt far more solid than the mv8k and the pads felt very different indeed. on the mpc4k i felt like i was hitting the *pads* on the mv8k i felt like i was hitting the *mv8k itself*! basically they didn't travel as far. also the mpc4k's display is far far clearer than the mv8ks

a few other details; mv8k has vga, mpc4k doesn't, mpc4k takes usb keyboard, mv8k doesn't, this is a good one and surprised me, the mv8k has nothing akin to cubase's 'drum editor' or 'grid editor', the mpc4k has

to be honest i have also accepted that if i get it wrong then it's worth loosing money to get it right, if the mpc4k don't work out for me then off it goes, try something else, it's worth it for your main bit of kit, if you can afford it

bottom line is they are actually very different machines, they just look similar! so i guess just understand the differences before you make a decision, it's not really the mv8k *or* the mpc4k it's which box does what you want it to in the way you want it to. fact is, the mv8k is amazing, but it's no more than a cosmetic challenge to the mpc concept, and vise versa for that matter

horses for courses and so on
jim

I was in the same shoes you guys are in right now a few months ago. I couldn't decide whether to get the 4K or the MV. After browsing this site and the MV forum (mvnation.com) and asking like a 1000 and 1 questions. I finally decided to go with the MPC4000. I picked mine up from Ebay for mad cheap (compared to the going rate for a brand new unit) and it was in excellent condition. I haven't use the computer since then to make music (besides using it for Aksys of course). Reason, Acid, and Orion Platinum are all laid to rest at the moment.

The 4K has more then exceeded my expectations and get this with the announcement of a new OS around the corner and more to come in the future, the best is yet to come!!!!!

Go with the 4K -You won't regret it!!!!

Thanks for the replies guys. I had the 1000 at first but took it back because it was straight up garbage. I experienced every major bug and quirk known to that machine, and if it can't do what it's built for, then what good is it. I also had the 2000XL Studio Plus, but I felt myself limited with it because I'm just not a sampler, I can play the keys too. I just wanted to know if anyone on this site used the 4000 as an all-in-one box even though that's probably not what it's intended for, and got decent or great results. Record audio, do beats, lay synth, bass lines, mix inside and the only thing you would need a computer for is to export the mixdown wav for burning. Just wondering if anyone does that, not caring about the advertised limitations.

jbplaya wrote:Thanks for the replies guys. I had the 1000 at first but took it back because it was straight up garbage. I experienced every major bug and quirk known to that machine, and if it can't do what it's built for, then what good is it. I also had the 2000XL Studio Plus, but I felt myself limited with it because I'm just not a sampler, I can play the keys too. I just wanted to know if anyone on this site used the 4000 as an all-in-one box even though that's probably not what it's intended for, and got decent or great results. Record audio, do beats, lay synth, bass lines, mix inside and the only thing you would need a computer for is to export the mixdown wav for burning. Just wondering if anyone does that, not caring about the advertised limitations.

Learn the process and you can make anything do what you want. The 4k is a workhouse full sampler which means it is deep. The mv is more of a groove machine with alot of loop automation which some of which the 4k doesn`t have. It up to you to learn and work your gear. The same things the MV does I can do on the 4k just it takes the basic steps to do it. If you want everything done for you the mv may be for you. If you learn the process of using samplers and sequencing you can do whatever you want with the 4k.

It all up to you educate yourself and develop your skill.

nice post Jim, you pretty much nailed it...

Good stuff. I guess it can be an all in one solutution, but I guess no one uses it like that for some reason. Thanks guys.

I do.
I make synts, make multi programs (keys, guitars, bass, strings, whatever..), slam drums, record skratches and mix it all together. Its not the ideal tool for an-all-in-one solution tho. (due to its poor effect section, only 4 inserts and 1 bus per track or insert A+B or C+D... ?!?! WTF!? +&*$#@%. ....
And it also needs a linear sequencer for laying down melodies and some other stuff,... http://www.mpc-forums.com/viewtopic.php?t=19721 ) But you can do a lot with it!
Akai seems to work full time (?) on new MPC4k's updates, so maybe within a year, this box can do it all.. who knows?
You can off course also buy one used and if you're not happy with it, sell it and get yourself the MV8000 used. Or vica versa.

Ikke, you could use the 2nd sequence/song feature to add 128 linear tracks to your current set of patterns. I assume that 2nd sequence or song simply continues playing, even when you change patterns.

Two individual fx sends per track/part would be great yes. Four of them would be perfect, but I'd be very happy with two of them.

"Ikke, you could use the 2nd sequence/song feature to add 128 linear tracks to your current set of patterns. I assume that 2nd sequence or song simply continues playing, even when you change patterns."

-> wat bedoel je daarmee en hoe doe je dat?

Goeiemiddag!

It's the Simul Play feature, available at the botton of the main screen. The 4k can play another sequence or song in the background, while playing your normal 'foreground' sequences.

So to have 128 linear tracks create a loooong sequence and record or copy some stuff in it. Specify that sequence as your second background sequence. I just hope it keeps playing the background sequence when you change forground sequences, without resetting the background sequence to it start.

It's a workaround of course, but it's a powerful trick really. Check out page 30 of the ref manual.

How do you do this in song mode? This only counts for the selected track in sequence / main mode

Merging sequences wich difference in lenght would solve this problem in no time Hope they have implemented this in the OS coming this or next month.

Looks like Simul Play is not available in Song mode indeed. Too bad. Couldn't find it in the stock ref manual at least.

You could of course convert your song into a sequence and record the solo tracks into that new long sequence, on a couple of free tracks. That's the original idea I guess.

No wait, I've got it.

You now have a song that plays your indivudual sequences, right? Good. Make that song the background song in the sequencer main page (it also works with songs!).

Now select a new looooong sequence (as the normal foreground sequence), and use that to record your solos into.

I'm not sure how usefull the result is though. You now have your song *and* that extra solo sequence. No easy way to join them I think, unless you convert your song into a sequence, again.