Please Convince Me

Sorry if this has been done before but I checked the forums and didn't see anything and I also looked at the akaipro websight but I have ADD when looking at spec comparisons...

Can you guys try to convinve me why the MPC 2500 is worth the extra 800 dollars or so over the 2000xl. Thanks

At first i though the 2500 was the bomb and now im so close to using a XL again. If its not one things its an other, like F*&ked up syncing issues or saving problems. Grid edit, the way you layer drums, 80BGB hard disk and the big screen are the only thing keeping me from the XL.

Just my 2 cents

No offense but I really prefer the 2500 over the XL. I had a chance to buy both and I chose the 2500. To be perfectly honest I have only used the XL a few times at a friend of mines house and some of the menus on the XL don't seem as user friendly as the 2500(IMO). I can tell you that the 2500 gives you more sample time 128MB compared to 32MB....if you want some really insight on comparing the two talk to Jahrome, he'll run it down for you

i had a 2000xl since 2001 and sold it about a month ago after having the 2500 for 3 months. the 2000xl was just sitting in a box unused after i got used to the 2500.

pluses for the 2500 over the 2000xl:

1) sample time
2) usb to connect the 2500 to computer and drag and drop files
3) better filters
4) larger screen
5) easier file storage: no more scsi. i had a 4 gb external hard drive connected to the 2000xl. i now have a 100gb internal hard drive in the 2500 (which is easy to back up with the usb connectivity). i did have a pc card drive in the 2000xl as well which i installed myself before akai started offering the mcd package. it helped a lot because i did away with floppies and zip disks, but the compact flash on the 2500 is just as nice.
6) ability to sample while a sequence is playing.
7) mute groups. on the 2000xl a single pad could only mute 2 other pads i think. i don't even remember if it was just 2 or if it was 3. but with mute groups on the 2500, you can have as many pads as you want cut each other off.

pluses for the 2000xl over the 2500:

1) data wheel was smoother and trimming samples was way easier because the more you spun the wheel, the faster the end points would move. with the the 2500 each click of the data wheel only moves one position, so you either have to use the sliders, or hold shift and click an arrow button to choose if each click of the data wheel will adjust the tens column by a single digit, or hundreds column by a single digit, etc. annoying.
2) the OS was pretty solid. i think i only had it freeze on me 1 or 2 times and lost beats. not bad for the amount of time i had it.
3) step edit was a little easier to comprehend i think. for each step, there was a different page, so you'd only see the pads that are being triggered for the current step. on the 2500, it's more like one long list of all of the triggered pads, and as you move through the steps, it moves down the list. the 2500 looks a little more cluttered.

that's all i can think of for now. i'm sure there's more for each.

The 2500 is a great machine, don't get me wrong. I mean, there are so many things aside from the more obvious reasons to get a 2500 over the XL that make the workflow so much efficient. Like the ability to preview a sample without having to load it; to me that was a minor thing that people hardly ever mention, but make a pretty big difference when making music. Personally, I wouldn't go back to the XL.

However, to play the devil's advocate on some of the other posts, even though you are getting more with the 2500 (more sampling time, more midi outs, more sliders, etc.), you are paying more like you mentioned. So, I guess the question you have to ask yourself is, do you need the extra features that the 2500 offers over the XL? I mean, I upgraded from the XL, and I still haven't bought the 128mb expansion, still am only using the same midi outputs (just one), and haven't installed a HD or the cd drive.

So it may just be all preference to some people. There isn't so much hype about the 2500 like there once was before, and the older MPCs are STILL VERY CAPABLE of producing full tracks. I'm sure Kanye is still using his 2000 (non-XL) and Pete Rock's still using his XL. Do a little more research, and you might just be able to figure out if you need it or not. If you go with the XL make sure it's an MCD, though, floppy disks are almost obsolete by now.

Dont get me wrong you guys you all have valid points but to me syncing the machine to be able to track is at the top of my list. What goods all the bells and whistles when you cannot record the beats ?.

There is no sync issues if you use midiclock. If you use midi time code there are some issues but I never use that. I would never go back to a 2000xl again. Working with the 2500 is a much more smooth workflow for me.

yepz wrote:Dont get me wrong you guys you all have valid points but to me syncing the machine to be able to track is at the top of my list. What goods all the bells and whistles when you cannot record the beats ?.

True, but you act like it's a problem that's never going to get fixed. Syncing is a big issue, and yes if you don't think it works, then the 2500 isn't a good choice.