Swing difference between 2000/3000?

DJ Hellfire wrote:I personally don't believe the 3000 has any special swing. It's all the same mathematics. Especially since Roger Linn himself said the same thing.

Straight from the horses mouth, so to speak ( your not said horse, DJ, btw ).

I personally don't believe the 3000 has any special swing. It's all the same mathematics. Especially since Roger Linn himself said the same thing.

I don't believe it neither (although I do believe that MPC-60 & 3000 are inspiring machines, amazing piece of hardware.)
If anything, I guess its super precise MIDI triggering capability is that what made MPC-3000 and MPC-60 legendary machines. (the test results show that MPC-60 and MPC-3000 keep extremely precise MIDI timing.)
Also, this is often overlooked, the fact that they don't display waveform also contribute to "special swing." It makes users to use their ears, not eyes, to edit sounds. I love 2000XL, but I can tell you that often those waveforms can hinder to make good judgements.

96 ppq (parts per quarter note) is not much of resolution to begin with, also that's part of the reason why MPC feels like it has special swing. one tick makes big difference if you are serious about overall smoothness of sequencing (I'm no professional, but I can conform that) and with 96ppq, your sequences are always quantized in 96 ppq, which most of listener can detect it as "special swing". This is a reason why some of MPC users double up BPM to make it as 198 ppq (of course, 2 bar equals 1 bar on 96 ppq.)

I don't think time scratching is related with the original topic here. It has nothing to do with swing.

JVC wrote:

I personally don't believe the 3000 has any special swing. It's all the same mathematics. Especially since Roger Linn himself said the same thing.

1. I love 2000XL, but I can tell you that often those waveforms can hinder to make good judgements.

2. I don't think time scratching is related with the original topic here. It has nothing to do with swing.

1. Exactly! I personally use the waveform as a guide to quickly zero in on the area I need to chop. From there, I close my eyes and listen as I fine tune the chop. If you just rely soley on the waveform, your chops will have pops and clicks. This is also why I never use auto chop. However, relying only on numbers, seems like it would take me much longer to find my estimated chop points.

2. Bruh, I don't know how that even got brought up! And who really gives a shit anyway?! As long as it works I'm cool!

tapedeck wrote:

sally wrote:what maths here?

fft, ifft, windowing, interpolation, resampling - not enough math for you?
it's a little more complicated than the swing formula.

Yes. Are familiar to me these words. But
I'm not enough, it's true. I appreciate
your dedication, thank you.
Oops ... I see many many irregularities
in the mathematical results in 2500.
This is precisely to distort the
sound, and the times, of course.


Thank you for your attention.

I am not convinced by those tests. It appears the tests are measuring the MPCs ability to sync to MTC or MIDI clock.

I believe an additional test is needed. Simply arm a DAW to record and then start your MPCs sequencer (playing 1/16 notes) without using sync. Then do your measurements. If the results of this test and the previous tests are the same, I may be convinced. As this test measures timing without being impacted by sync.