Graphic editing...

jahrome wrote: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.

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

See, now you're talking. That's true, for loops it's a lot easier with waveform view, best of course in a computer, but i hear you on that. checking for zero crossings is nice with waveform views. But i think my beef isn;t so much with waveform views, which I can live without and don't really care for in samplers but love on my computer, but the way you move the start and end points. like the 2500 can use the Q link sliders for start and end right? if you can just zip where you need to go then the waveform view is neither here nor there, you can listen and mive the sliders, watch the waveform, or TV whatever. it would be dope if the knobs worked as a fine control, but i'm probably pushing it.
my main beef is really with the decimal place editing, really cumbersome IMO. Although I still prefer numerical even on the ASR and emax, I now recognize (thanks to you Jahrome) that my main issue with the 6000 wasn't really the waveform as much as the decimal place.

Wow, we finally got constructive!

Now lets take a different perspective.
I would disagree that visual is easier or better, quicker or slower.
What it offers is an interface that will seem easier to learn or relate to for most people.
What makes the use of numbers work fast is highly dependent on how quickly your mind associates math to your perspective.
You should be able to take any sample and listen to one pass, look at the numerical diplay and know what numbers fall at what point of the sample based on how well you see division of time.
If you cut your skills using the old samplers and grew with samplers as they improved numbers should be faster than visual or at worst as fast as.
Wouldn't matter if we are talking computer or hardware visual ( and we are talking functional human speed not speed of the device).
Now if you are a person who has more experience with the more modern samplers then you will have no problem using the non-graphic units but will probably prefer the visual.
I am not trying to say it's cut and dry but there are many variables to why different units feel more comfortable like the MPC60's - best start function.
Or how to some leaving the SP/MPC/ASR etc to edit on the computer stalls their idea or trying to start at the computer doesn't give them ideas at all.
Or how the zoom on the MPC is limited and doesn't allow you to choose visual amplitude.
I guess what I am getting at is no matter what it's just a representation of digital information and how well you associate to that information it's providing.

Take Jahrome's statement;
I can edit a sample without listening to it..getting a perfect loop. Why would I not use/want such a feature.

I know exactly what he is saying but the difference is that I would only sample what I wanted so the loop is pretty much done when you sample,
like when using the SP202/303.
Also comes from having dealt with limited sample time where your didn't have the real luxury of trunacation.

And that's a prime example of why one isn't really better than the other.
I like the visual on the MPC, but it's more because of other features that go along with it on those models.
The visual on the VP is much better and more useful but it's not an MPC so it has it's other limitations.
It also doesn't mean that I prefer a visual display to using the ASR, EMAX or SP and their overall interface and other advantages of those units.
It's just good that we have the choice of both to choose from.

Just pick your weapons wisely and try to master them

elmacaco wrote:
See, now you're talking. That's true, for loops it's a lot easier with waveform view, best of course in a computer, but i hear you on that. checking for zero crossings is nice with waveform views. But i think my beef isn;t so much with waveform views, which I can live without and don't really care for in samplers but love on my computer, but the way you move the start and end points. like the 2500 can use the Q link sliders for start and end right? if you can just zip where you need to go then the waveform view is neither here nor there, you can listen and mive the sliders, watch the waveform, or TV whatever. it would be dope if the knobs worked as a fine control, but i'm probably pushing it.
my main beef is really with the decimal place editing, really cumbersome IMO. Although I still prefer numerical even on the ASR and emax, I now recognize (thanks to you Jahrome) that my main issue with the 6000 wasn't really the waveform as much as the decimal place.

Wow, we finally got constructive!

Using a computer is great for editing...but we are talking about hardware (I believe). With tcomputers, you basically have a mouse instead of knobs/sliders.

As far as the MPC 25000's Q-link knobs...you can use these in conjunction with the waveform view to edit samples...and still use the data wheel and cursor keys for fine editing.

Back to computers...I tried using them for editing...but it wasn't my cup of tea....not being really that much faster. If their is hardware/control surface that functions like the Q-link sliders/data wheel of an MPC....I could see that as being superior. In my case...in could be just a matter of picking a better software sample editor.

we were talking about waveform views, which computers had first. the computer is faster, but i prefer to sample into the samplers directly for more sound contreol, and sampling is fun.

but editing wise the mouse is point and click right on the waveform view, that's hard to beat.

but as far as MPC's go, the Q links sound like the business. Do you have to hold any buttons or highlight a parameter or once you're on the editing page the sliders become start and end?

Do they work on setting loop points too?

If we are going to keep talking about computers..then to be more accurate, we need to talk about specific software. Computers alone had nothing first. There are all kinds of +/- with different pieces of software.

With Akai samplers and Aksys...you have the best of both worlds.

The sliders work with editing start/end points in the trim screen as well as the loop screen. But in order for the sliders to work in this fashion, you have to press and hold down the keys directly above the q-link sliders.

Just talking about waveform editing, software waveform editng doesn't vary that much in terms of editing, using a mouse, highlighting sections, etc.

All software is not created equally. If I am hearing that software is superior for this or that..I need an example. But that's just me.

For making quick edits, computer software can be easy (although the 2500 is just as easy). But for fine editing...the MPC series just seem to be easier for me. If there is software that is easier..I will look into it for sure. The only sample editing program I have used is Awave, which is not that easy for me.

the best editing for samples imho is the sp1200 and the emulators... **** fun as hel with those sliders, it works soo easy...**** i wish the mpc could do it with sliders:-)

the best editing for samples imho is the sp1200 and the emulators... **** fun as hel with those sliders, it works soo easy...**** i wish the mpc could do it with sliders:-)

There are a few MPCs you can choose that do have sliders....

not the same...unless the 4000 does it quickly....the new mpcs sound like shit anyway...

3001 wrote:
not the same...unless the 4000 does it quickly....the new mpcs sound like **** anyway...

Your entitled to your opinion but I totally disagree.

Besides the MPC 1000, I have owned/used every MPC for quite sometime...most recently the MPC 3000LE which I have used for years until it was replaced my by the 2500.. None of them sound like crap...unless you put crap in them. What I put into the MPC 2500 comes back out practically the same way. This is good for me.

The sliders work nicely on the 2500. As far as the SP1200....I bought one 1 1/2 ago. The interface is horrible compaired to any MPC and the drum trigger buttons stick over time among other things...but this debate is detailed in quite a few hundred threads. I sold the SP1200 on ebay..I was suprised to get very little for such a classic machine.

Well with sticky buttons what do you expect?

Nah, the SP has the best slider integration on it's interface. Imagine if the 2500 automatically had the sliders for trimming start and end points as soon as you got to the screen, or at least if the buttons latched, then automatically on different screens controlling different parameters, it makes for a very quick interface.

As far as software, soundforge, wavelab, audition, they all allow quick editing and you can zoom in with the mouse wheel until you see the individual samples, it's hard to get more accurate than that, but for most applications that is overkill. It just makes sense tho with a waveform to be able to just move to where you want to be than to scroll. Since your eyes are already engaged a point and click interface then uses that.

If you need to do any computer editing jahrome, you should check sound forge. probably the best out there for editing.

Still the sliders on the 2500 sound good, slight compromise with the holding the button, but that's probably a concession in case people bump them accidentally, but it's not like it would be tough to get it back wih sliders. maybe hold a button for fine in case the knobs don;t do fine adjustment.

They really could have fleshed it out a bit more, but people tend to lower there expectations these days since equipment isn;t made for professionals anymore, since more ameatures are the larger buying market.

At least you don;t have to scroll to the cursor to the parameter number.
I should really check out a 2500, especially now with akai filling for bancruptcy.

I dunno man, i judge shit a lot on how 909s sound within the sampler. this may be wrong:P lol... but i do tekno...

the 909 in an mpc1000 sounds really shitty. oh btw, take off the global eq that most people forget is on?:-) that adds lo frequencise. i did that. and my 909 sounded lifeless. i can put the mpc3000 next to my tr909 and they'll sound identical next to eachother. mpc2kxl i've done that with and the mpc1k, they've always stopped short. basically what i'd do is have a 4 on the floor kick and then replace every other kick with the mpc's. and there would not be a real difference at all... with newer samplers no..

i've never used the 4000 or 2500 they might be different. But judging from what I've heard I doubt it.

something about the a/d and d/a converters on the 2kxl and 2k and 1000 i really really really dont like. and the tuning sounds nasty:X...

i'm a really obsessive with sound person tho. i need everything i use to be top notch high quality and fun to work with....else it's just frustrating:-)

the 2k was based on the s2000 and the 3k on the s3000 no? the s3000 was known to have better converters, the s2000 known to have cheaper ones, correct or not?

Every piece of hardware ever created had its pros and cons.

What the SP 12/1200 did great in one area..suk'd in another area. Its sound is one thing..but the overall interface is so caveman-like. Any of Akai's present/past flagship MPC is a better choice.

The sliders of the 4000/2500 have multiple functions. The 2500 is too new. Who knows what will be added within 1 year. No one has a clue what the expansion port is that is located next to its memory port.

Sound Forge as well as the others I plan to look into.



3001, any talk about the quality of sound coming from an MPC 4000 or 2500 being bad is BS. From my experience..what I put into these machines came out pretty much the same. What I find funny..for everyone in these forums that claim they that one machine has better AD/DA converters than another...the same individuals run the outputs of these machines (with reportedly better converters) into cheap soundcards to get into their computer....probably with RCA cables Others use the worst mixers or monitors they could afford. Bedroom engineers......(like me)

no i don't do that at all. with the cables and shitty monitors and shitty soundcard...nope:-) i have a moderately decent set up for that...and it's easy ot tell teh difference!:-)


like what i said sample 909 and compare...


the sp1200 interface is a **** joy to work with. it is simple and to the point. I think the sp1200 is simply one of the best interfaces out there.

i can work on one of those blindfolded, can't say that about the mpcs with 1000 shfit functions:p

i don't believe additional features are that great. I think what's top priority is a machine that gets the job done.