MPC 3000 Vintage Mode Samples

MPC-Tutor wrote:Right who else has an MPC3000 and a Ren who's willing to set up this test exactly how everyone is demanding it be set up?

And there is no need to end your posts with a personal dig at the OP. Completely unnecessary and completely undermines any point you were trying to make. But it's perfectly fine to express an opinion that you feel the test hasn't been set up correctly, and the OP has to accept that. But just make your point and move on.

Apologies to OP and mods! I needn't have done that. I'm gonna delete it!

I still think the test is flawed, perhaps not biased, but previous posts might suggest that.

PEACE!

^^^ I see you got it already Tutor. Thanks!

Apologies again. I think the other thread (RE: circuitry) was getting up my nose and I offloaded in this one.

The jibe was pointless.

To be honest, I appreciate the feedback on what you all want to hear from these MPCs. But I had to create a simple test and focus on one thing which is the MPC Ren’s emulation of the MPC 3000. (Emulate…strive to equal or excel; imitate). It simply adds MPC 3000 character on the master out. It doesn’t emulate the AD converter or the MPC 3000s record gain. So the test is based off of what the Ren actually does, not what is doesn’t do. That is a different test.

Simple test:

1. Record the same sample via digital input into both MPCs
2. Record the analog outs of these MPCs
3. Listen and judge whether these two samples sound similar
4. Guess which is which

In doing this test, I have a hypothesis. Assume and hypothesis has the same meaning for those that don’t know. Hypothesis is not a conclusion or a fact. The test is for listeners to ‘guess’ which is MPC X or Y. If there is a difference… is the difference negligible? That is for each person to decide for themselves. The end result will not be fact-based. It is opinionated. Play the samples one at a time and leave feedback based upon what you hear .

*Note - This test does not test sync. Lining the tracks up in your DAW to see if they cancel each other out without editing will produce phasing.

I think I need to clarify something I stated earlier as I can see how the wording could lead to confusion. When I said Y was "shifted to the right" I mean that Y is actually not centered in the stereo field. I wasn't referring to phase, lining up audio or synchronization. Y is noticeably more heavy toward the right than the left, where X is essentially centered.

As far as phase though, one is actually around 180° out of phase in respect to the other. This is there regardless of if one tries to line the tracks up or not.

These anomalies invalidate the "comparison" in my opinion because those who didn't notice it directly but still perceive subtle degradations will likely choose X inadvertently even though any sonic difference in timbre or tonality between them, otherwise, is negligible compared to these artifacts. I have no idea why anyone would choose Y. However, asking someone to judge between these two is like asking someone which of two photos was taken with a Canon or Nikon, or in this context, which image they prefer, while ignoring the fact that one of the images is noticeably skewed. The warped image would invalidate the test unless it is an actual artifact of one of the cameras. In this case, they would be more judging a side effect of the mis-wiring, a fault in one of the units, or user error.

Personally, I find it hard to "guess" which one I think is which unit or which I feel is best because the artifacts doesn't allow me to fairly judge between them. Unless you can state that what we are hearing, including imaging issues, is a real artifact of one of the units. However, if it's any consolation, I thought they both sounded like a mp3 more than a MPC3000.

The comment I'm referring to…

Did anyone else notice that the MPC Y example is noticeably shifted to the right and out of phase with respect to X? This was the first thing that jumped out to me and makes me wonder about the QC of this "test" or if something is going on in the chain somewhere. The stereo discrepancy alone makes Y inferior to X by default, to me, regardless of which unit it comes from unless this is a proposed artifact of one of the particular units.

Undertow wrote:I thought they both sounded like a mp3 more than a MPC3000.

they're mp3 128k, would have been better to upload files on depositfiles.com or somewhere similar that doesn't recompress

I downloaded the .wav files. To me, those even sounded like mp3s.

had looked for one but didn't see the download link. found it now

The audio files were from a CD. Pro Tools recorded as wav files.

I swear, I havent read any of this thread before posting my thoughts.

I cannot tell any difference. I thought I could hear a very subtle difference on file Y but that could easily be a placebo. Im not monitoring very loudly but usually at this level I can tell the difference, if there is any between different daws.

However, if this is just a stereo file played back - ie not separated instruments mixed instruments then that would make it much more difficult to tell (at least for me). I was never one to agree with those stereo file Daw summing tests. Always thought it was the summed parts which revealed obvious differences in Daws.

EDIT
OK, after reading I see now it is a stereo file from a commercial record. Yeah, I thought it sounded a bit familiar

For me this test isn't much use - not that there was anything wrong with jahs testing method btw. If I had an MPC 3000 and a Ren I would not use a stereo sample from a commercial record which has already been heavily processed. Neither would I use a bunch of samples ripped from any record. I would use separate, clean, individual drum hits programmed up in the sequencer as well as adding a programmed bass line and a basic synth line. That is how this test should be done because its the summed parts which will reveal instantly, any differences if there are any.

As I said above the stereo Daw summing tests done a few years ago were a bit of a nonsense, and I wasn't the only one who thought that. Sure there were differences, but they were so subtle because all they used were a single pre mixed stereo source file.

JAH wrote:My hypothesis is that the differences are negligible. This goes for pretty much all MPCs in my opinion.

I talked plenty about things I like about MPCs...rarely do I discuss and debate sound. They all sound great.

I tend to agree with you here except in the case of the MPC60.
Ive never had an MPC3000. The only time i have heard them is on You Tube and I do get the feeling the 3000 sound is probably a bit over hyped by owners. Thats not to say it doesnt have a sound but I would wager a bet that its quite subtle but of course stronger as a cumulative effect with a number of instrument sounds/tracks running from the machines out puts.

Akai didnt go out of their way to make their MPCs have a sound, or any other manufacturer of samplers for that matter. In fact they were striving for absolute faithful reproduction.

crossings wrote:
what do you think gives "the mpc3000 sound" in the first place if it isn't sampling through it's sample engine? that is the whole point!

A very valid point for sure. If I sample in to my Roland S750 sampler using its analog inputs it definitely changes the sound - in a good way I might add. Its not obvious just with one sound, its much more noticeable when a number of samples are playing back.

So, I guess we can only test the MPC3000 and Rens output stage by loading the same samples in digitally which I believe the 3000 has the capability of doing.

Or we sample the sounds manually in to both machines using their analog input stage.

Well, I guess we need both tests

MPCWeapon1 wrote:
Let me hear the sound comparison with drum break from a old record that precedes hip hop. That's what sampling drum machines are used for.

Or it doesn't even have to precede hip hip...something like this.

Sorry, thats a rather limited point of view. That drum break has been seriously processed by a multitude of stuff since it ws first recorded. Simply taking one sample and dropping it in to a sampler wont reveal much of the samplers conversion and out put stages.

Sampling drum machines are not just used for sampling breaks. They are used for playing back one hit drum samples as well. Even then thats just the tip of the iceberg of how their used in the real world.

labcoats wrote:

MPCWeapon1 wrote:
Let me hear the sound comparison with drum break from a old record that precedes hip hop. That's what sampling drum machines are used for.

Or it doesn't even have to precede hip hip...something like this.

Sorry, thats a rather limited point of view. That drum break has been seriously processed by a multitude of stuff since it ws first recorded. Simply taking one sample and dropping it in to a sampler wont reveal much of the samplers conversion and out put stages.

Sampling drum machines are not just used for sampling breaks. They are used for playing back one hit drum samples as well. Even then thats just the tip of the iceberg of how their used in the real world.

I disagree. Most people use MPC's to sample sounds from old vinyl. At least in my genre. 3000 enthusiasts like that machine because the drums sound full and punchy. The break I referenced is a typical drum break that a producer would use to create a kit.

i think mpc y sounds a little cleaner in the lower end, i guess its the ren as i have never heard the mpc3000 it just sounds a bit more digital, or have they made the emulation more analog warmer sounding than the mp3000?
its close but is not enough difference between them to care and when mastering tracks you will change the sound characteristics more in the end depending on mastering plugins you use.

Thanks for the feedback. Once I have 6 more votes, I will reveal which is MPC X and Y. Then I will post 3 additional samples...Original, MPC Ren, and MPC 3000. I will use just a classic break beat.

The Ren also has an emualtion of the MPC 3000 program filter. I will include this in further tests.