what you guys think mpc 3000 or mpc 2500

Duh........I don't know why I didn't see that.

jahrome wrote:Thanks to Boomspot, you can listen to these samples to hear the differences between the MPC 3000 and 2500. Let me know what you think.


http://www.boomspot.com/2500vs3000/Test1.wav
http://www.boomspot.com/2500vs3000/Test2.wav

the 3000 has alot sweeter and grittier sound. Although the 2500 sounds alot cleaner

J.Daniels wrote:
the 3000 has alot sweeter and grittier sound. Although the 2500 sounds alot cleaner

LOL........you sound like you know which one is which!!1

Upright wrote:
LOL........you sound like you know which one is which!!1

J.Daniels wrote:
the 3000 has alot sweeter and grittier sound. Although the 2500 sounds alot cleaner

Please be specific about which sample you are talking about...

what about the difference in the sound of each machine's pitching algorithms? could you do a couple examples of a sample at 0, -12, and +12 semitones on both machines?

jahrome wrote:

Upright wrote:
LOL........you sound like you know which one is which!!1

J.Daniels wrote:
the 3000 has alot sweeter and grittier sound. Although the 2500 sounds alot cleaner

Please be specific about which sample you are talking about...

hah, i was just under the assumption that the first one is the 3000 for some reason. well whatever the first test track is, i prefer that sound.

Antonym wrote:
what about the difference in the sound of each machine's pitching algorithms? could you do a couple examples of a sample at 0, -12, and +12 semitones on both machines?

I am open to anything. But the first test should be completed first. What are your comments about these samples?

J.Daniels wrote:
hah, i was just under the assumption that the first one is the 3000 for some reason. well whatever the first test track is, i prefer that sound.

I think I prefer the first one also...........I'm hoping that one is the 2500 but, to be honest they're so close it really doesn't matter.

After we get a couple of opinions in here, maybe J will reveal which one is which.

Hold tight Ryan, we should have your answer here soon.

my comment about the existing samples - they both have good, similar sonic quality. they both sound 16 bit. i didn't listen on my monitors (just some big room speakers hooked up to a laptop). i noticed minor differences here and there, but one is not "better" than the other, just marginally different.

timing wise, i noticed no difference. if i had time i'd line em up in acid and zoom in to see, but if i'd have to do that to see timing differences, they're NA.

that having been said, it does sound like these samples are all @ the pitch they came from straight off the record, and part of a sampler's sound is how well it down and up pitches. there may still be some more audible difference in the two machines, but so far so good, they sound close enough to end a couple arguments about machine sound.

a 60 and a 2500 would be interesting due to the bit difference, too. but this answers a lot of questions.

now, did you recreate the beat on both machines? if so, how? did you sample every sound into the 2500 and make the beat, and then sample every sound into the 3000 and make the beat? ie, did you get the particular sound of the machine sampling in as well as the output?

funny how many things there are to test, when really i still say that you can mix your stuff at home and make it sound passably awesome.

Yes, there are way too many things to test. So I have to keep every test simple.

What you are hearing is the MPCs DA converters only. The samples are indentical. Test 1 is the MPC 2500 and Test 2 is the MPC 3000.

Next, I would like to compare the AD converters, which you will notice a big difference. The MPC 3000 has an amp (input gain...low, mid, high) and the 2500 doesn't. With the 3000s input set to low, the 2500 sounds better. But once you adjust the 3000s gain...its much better than the 2500.

Both MPCs are connected to a Yamaha 02R. The 02R is connected digitally to an RME sound card. They were both recorded into Wavelab 6. No additional processing or effects.

So are you saying that each machine shines in it's own aspect? One in DA conversion one in AD conversion? I'm I right or am I misunderstanding you here?


To be honest I really don't know the difference between DA and AD or how they effect the sound of samples. DA is Digital to Analog and AD is the opposite, right? When does my mpc use DA as oppose AD to convert data? Can someone straiten me out on this?

DA converters are the MPCs outputs. AD converters are the inputs.

sucks the 2500 doesnt have the gain switch. even tho the 3k is 16bit, you can get some grimy samples sampled at 'med'. i redline slightly on my dj mixer and get a nice fuzz. and much louder than the 'lo' setting. I would also like to hear how they both sound, when sampled in 45 and pitched down -50. Ive come across samplers that sound fine, until they're pitched up/down.

jahrome wrote:DA converters are the MPCs outputs. AD converters are the inputs.

Oh,Ok...........got it.

peezie wrote:
sucks the 2500 doesnt have the gain switch. even tho the 3k is 16bit, you can get some grimy samples sampled at 'med'. i redline slightly on my dj mixer and get a nice fuzz. and much louder than the 'lo' setting. I would also like to hear how they both sound, when sampled in 45 and pitched down -50. Ive come across samplers that sound fine, until they're pitched up/down.

Even Wu don't use grimy samples anymore. But I understand what you are trying to imply.