Akai Mcp-3000/60 vs Mpc-4000

My experience tell me that many artists has stayed with their Akai Mpc-3000/60 and not converting to Akai Mpc-4000

My question is:
• Why? (On paper Akai Mpc-4000 looks superior)

I asked a friend of mine, why he didn’t switch to Akai Mpc-4000 (He uses Akai Mpc-3000) and he said:
• Akai Mpc-4000 has a very hard learning-curve.
• Many of his friends, wont switch because they think that the Mpc-3000 has a very nice Low-pass filter. (Doesn’t Mpc-4000 has a very good Low-pass filter too?)

My friend also admitted, that Akai Mpc-4000 has a very bad reputation…..

The fear people have in learning a new piece of gear is deterrent enough to not want to switch gear.

The 4000 has far more sampler based functions than the 3000 which can be overwhelming and cause confusion to those who are used to a smaller array of options on earlier machines.

My friend also admitted, that Akai Mpc-4000 has a very bad reputation…..

i think he was referring to the MPC5000..

the people who used the 3000 since the 90's did hear that the 4000 had a bad reputation when it came out... it had some bad issues before the updates. So just think... now we have complicated daws and gear that make the feature set of the 4000 look small. Back then when you only had the 3000, which dwarfed the features of the 60... looking at the 4000 was this huge steep learning curve because the added features was just as huge. It wasn't that simple straight to the point sampling and make the **** beat like the 3000...

so, you had too many added features so it wasn't as simple and to the point, you had early OS bugs, the 3000's filter that people were used to wasn't there (which mattered to people)...


Now, is the 4000 actually superior? yeah if you need the horsepower and it fits your sound... no if you don't need the horsepower, and your sound involves that vintage sampler sound.

mr_debauch wrote:the people who used the 3000 since the 90's did hear that the 4000 had a bad reputation when it came out... it had some bad issues before the updates. So just think... now we have complicated daws and gear that make the feature set of the 4000 look small. Back then when you only had the 3000, which dwarfed the features of the 60... looking at the 4000 was this huge steep learning curve because the added features was just as huge. It wasn't that simple straight to the point sampling and make the **** beat like the 3000...

so, you had too many added features so it wasn't as simple and to the point, you had early OS bugs, the 3000's filter that people were used to wasn't there (which mattered to people)...


Now, is the 4000 actually superior? yeah if you need the horsepower and it fits your sound... no if you don't need the horsepower, and your sound involves that vintage sampler sound.

Thanks for the answer mr_debauch.

You threw some good points and yeah “too many features” may scare some people from “upgrading” especially if the Mpc-3000 can provide what’s needed with its features.
• Keep it simple.

You mentioned this “LowPass filter”, isn’t it possible to emulate or make something similar with the lowpass filter on Akai Mpc-4000?

yeah, but THAT filter... i think it's nothing special but some people like the filter on the 3000 just knowing it's the filter on the 3000... it's not a moog filter or anything like that.... but many people around here have talked about it or asked about it.... it's got some sort of hype like the mpc 60 swing (which is a myth as far as i'm concerned.. it's just swing)

Me personally, I am not looking at an mpc to do all my life's grunt work so I would prefer the 3000 over the 4000. Just the simplicity and fun of the machine is fine.... but the 4000 does have a lot of shit it can do that most hardware cant do.... it's the only mpc that can sample in 24 bit.. you can plug a USB key right into it... it's really a power house.

In my workflow.. I use the mpc for fun and simplicity when i'm in the mood... when i'm trying to get something serious done I tend to go to daws.

It's a common misconception that the 4K is difficult to learn or that the features get in the way, but I found it an absolute doddle to learn inside and out, and probably looked at the manual twice. There's a certain logic to the OS which means you can use it exactly like any other MPC, albeit with a bigger screen and more hands-on control.

Things start to get a bit more complex when it comes to keygroups and the modulation matrix, but even then, it's more to do with certain functions being tedious to use than difficult. Mapping out heavy keygroups is like Chinese water torture though! On the other hand, being able to use all those classic S series libraries is nice.

One of the main problems with the 4K is the gain staging... literally everything is permanently at full tits with no headroom, so to get anything louder you have to drop the volume of everything else. The Q-links are also woefully underused in sample edit. I'm sure an update or two would have addressed that, but it is what it is.

People shouldn't be put off by the perceived complexity, especially as a lot of the features are there to make your life easier.

Coz wrote:It's a common misconception that the 4K is difficult to learn or that the features get in the way, but I found it an absolute doddle to learn inside and out, and probably looked at the manual twice. There's a certain logic to the OS which means you can use it exactly like any other MPC, albeit with a bigger screen and more hands-on control.

Yeah, being stuck with the same features would also be a bit stubborn by Akai. I don’t own Akai Mpc-4000 and Akai Mpc-3000. Nevertheless, I guess that Akai Mpc-4000 is much more visual than Akai Mpc-3000?

Roger Linn gives the answer here > From 1:19

I read the message in here and on other forms and heard about how hard the 4000 was going to be. It is not difficult at all if you have half a brain. The 3000 or the 4000 will suit you just fine.
I will never sell my 4000. I am sure that I will be making my grammy winning track with it. Everything I need to do to make music can be done with it.

Peace
Ian

Ian Canefire wrote:I read the message in here and on other forms and heard about how hard the 4000 was going to be. It is not difficult at all if you have half a brain. The 3000 or the 4000 will suit you just fine.
I will never sell my 4000. I am sure that I will be making my grammy winning track with it. Everything I need to do to make music can be done with it.

Peace
Ian

Thanks for your input, did you went straight to the Akai Mpc-4000 or did you come from Akai Mpc-3000 (maybe Mpc-60 or other?)

Can you mention any producer/artist, who made a Grammy winning track with an Akai Mpc-4000 yet? Maybe Mike Elizondo?

Hi,
I cannot name anyone specifically who has made a complete track with the 4000 that won a grammy award. For starters most people use many different items at the same time and not just one unit.
There are several music makers who have used the 4000. A quick search on youtube will show you that it is in the background in many studios.
The first MPC I ever owned was/is the 4000. I am familiar with the 3000 and the 2000 through other peoples' studios.
I just have to be frank with you, the equipment is not going to hinder you in anyway. The 3000 and the 4000 do their jobs well. Spec wise the 4000 is a powerhouse. It is also less expensive than the 3000. Now there are videos all over youtube explaining how to use the 4000 so you can't get stuck.
Whatever you do just don't buy both. Either one is gonna be fine timing wise, for making a rhythm, sequencing, sound, etc.

Peace
Ian