Graphic editing...

bah that's ghetto might as wellk put white out over the 2 and put it as a 3 and pretend to yourself.

L. Tombstone wrote:

mpc3000le wrote:For those of us who have grown up with IM90, EIII, SP12, SP1200, MIRAGE, EPS, ASR machines ... the numbers are a real enough representation of where things are at.

True...except that the ASR-10 and EPS series have that lame numerical system where everything is 0-99 no matter how big the sample is. I much prefer the MPC because the numerical values are directly related to the sample's duration time. Makes it so much easier for drum editing because after a while you know where to chop the sample end off top (within reason of course). Any f*ckhead comments off what I just said or any other funnystyle sh*t posted due to this here post...F*ck you in advance.

closing your eyes you can't see the numbers, or where your cursor is. We know you're not Dumb Jahrome, so don't just shoot from the hip in here.

elmacaco wrote:
closing your eyes you can't see the numbers, or where your cursor is. We know you're not Dumb Jahrome, so don't just shoot from the hip in here.

I keep forgetting that you are very picky with wording (at least when it is my part).....

No I didn't mean completely close your eyes. I meant that you do not need to look at the graphic waveform display..that's about it. What ever floats your boat.......I know where I am. I not afraid to get flamed by you guys that probably don't care for graphic waveform display...its pretty useless..Pro Tools, Logic, Cubase..what stupid concepts..music is created by ears

Don't lump us all together jahrome.

I'm sure that if some crazy os upgrade or mod was available that would enable looping and graphic waveform editing on the 60's and 3000's some would jump at it (I know I would).

Graphic waveform editing is great but not always necessary. Sure, music is made with the ears but if you can actually see the sample and do meticulous editing (like taking out pops/clicks and removing specific sections) then it's all the better.

All of us rocking 60's and 3000's are forced to edit by ear so we get by. However, if we had the choice to actually see what we were doing as well, more of us than would admit would love to be able to.

Not the case.

I already said in computers it makes much more sense because of mouse control, just ike in the roland S series.

I've used both graphic and numerical, and I find numerical much faster. And I actually started editing samples with waveform editing, not numerical, so it isn't something that I'm just used too.

Then again, I'm not really your average hip hop samplist, so maybe I'm just weird. Although then Dove's weird with me

Oh, and I would welcome looping in the 60, but not graphic waveform editing. I think there should be a way to disable it, the problem is that it can be a distraction.

elmacaco wrote:Oh, and I would welcome looping in the 60, but not graphic waveform editing.

I was just about to say the same thing... I honestly wouldn't pay for graphic editing but looping would blow me away. When you consider the 16 levels function it would make the 60 extremely powerful.

Don't hold your breath

once you have looping you need real envelopes too.

that's what the racks are for if you really get down.

This is another case of I will agree to disagree.

Graphic Waveform editing is not really essential for editing single hits of an instrument. But when it comes to getting a perfect loop...it will make your life so easy. As I said before, using the graphic display..I can edit a sample without listening to it..getting a perfect loop. Why would I not use/want such a feature.

Well...until recently, I was a long time MPC 3000 user myself. I parted ways with it when the MPC 2500 dropped. I will never part with my graphic wavefore display again....but I do anticipate getting another MPC 3000...just because.

I am talking phrase loops..not looping parts of a sound to sustain it.

Im not a big fan of numerical. I like waveform editing but like stated earlier it takes long as hell for the wave to show up on the 2kxl

Jacpot wrote:
Im not a big fan of numerical. I like waveform editing but like stated earlier it takes long as hell for the wave to show up on the 2kxl

What MPC 2000XLs were you all using. Yall trippin. What were yall sampling.....6 minute song

I never had any issues with the time it takes for the 2000XKL to draw waveforms. No problems at all with the 2500..even with a 6 minute sample...it just has other problems

You sample 6 minutes of a song?

Can I get your autograph, Kanye?

TicToc wrote:
You sample 6 minutes of a song?

Can I get your autograph, Kanye?

No but obvisously others in the forums do since they are claiming that it takes a hell of a long time for the XL to draw samples.

Don't hate on Kanye...

jahrome wrote:

Jacpot wrote:
Im not a big fan of numerical. I like waveform editing but like stated earlier it takes long as hell for the wave to show up on the 2kxl

What MPC 2000XLs were you all using. Yall trippin. What were yall sampling.....6 minute song

I never had any issues with the time it takes for the 2000XKL to draw waveforms. No problems at all with the 2500..even with a 6 minute sample...it just has other problems

I make long samples cause I like to zone my ish out. About 5 seconds. when u have a 5 second wave it takes about 10 seconds for the wave to fully appear on the screen. and that can be a problem when editing the start point it will neva be accurate untill the wave is on the screen fully because it does a little hickup each time u hit the pad before the wave shows up fully.

2wice wrote:

elmacaco wrote:Oh, and I would welcome looping in the 60, but not graphic waveform editing.

I honestly wouldn't pay for graphic editing

Yeah, on second thought I wouldn't either. I didn't consider the wave draw time on the screen.

The 60 has a what 10Mhz processor? Man, that would take FOREVER. Forget that ish.