Why Does the 3000 Bump more than the 2000xl

Don't tell me some bullsh;t, like oh, roger linn, i love him, he did it, it's him it's him (ex. drumat!c).

Technically, why, if so, does it bang more than other mpcs like the 2k, 1k, 2kxl, and 4k?

I read a post from MPC3000 that said the D/A convertors are the same in all machines. So why does the 3k "thump" more than the 2kxl? I searched the archives man and some sh;t came up but no one found an answer.

1

My man, I will give you this advice. Get one, or try one out for yourself so that YOU can determine if it bumps more. Ever thought that it might not REALLY bump more and its all in peoples head's?

I have them both and I wont offer an opinion or a reason here because the answer is in YOUR ears.

MaZe

i use one. i am asking though, technically, does it bump more or is it just a big rumor that has gone around.

i also gotta 60. i've had an xl, and 1000.

peace, and imo, maybe it thumps, more but i can't really tell, i haven't loaded the same sound in two mpcs side by side, recorded each one, made the volumes the exact same and then analyzed the waveforms to see if one of them is different from the other

the 60 has more going in, the non linear sampling accentuates transients to my ears (cue mike to tell me I'm full of shyt j/k )

I would say it is attention to detail. Roger Linn was big on sound, making things sound good, that's why he modified the 900 sampling engine for the 60. the 2000's were made on the cheap, for the cheap. They cut corners, added features, and if it sounded OK, keep it. It wasn't marketed for pros, so the effort they put into the details was enough to get away with it, which is still hard, but not as high a standard as the early machines which were marketed to rich professionals (6G's in 88?? not for the bedroom / DJ crowd) the luxuries were taken away, evident in the small screen among other things.

Slapping extra features on took on the bulk of the time imo, timestretch is cool, but I would say 90% of XL users on't use it at all, or hardly ever, looks good on paper though. I saw an XL on the floor of a music store recently, and it just looks, well, cheap. and for what it delivers, it does have good value for money, but the sound is a bit of a compromise. A friend had a 60, 3000, and a 2k, and you could hear that the bass on the 2k was a little abscent compared to the other ones. Can be cured, but is a slight weakness of the box.

elmacaco wrote:timestretch is cool, but I would say 90% of XL users on't use it at all, or hardly ever

I never use it. It just sits there patiently while the world passes it by.

spen wrote:I read a post from MPC3000 that said the D/A convertors are the same in all machines. So why does the 3k "thump" more than the 2kxl? I searched the archives man and some sh;t came up but no one found an answer.
1

MPC3000 ( Mike Goins / MIDICASE ) is correct where the part numbers are concerned.

However, as with all things in life.

The same part numbers don't mean a thing when their implimentation is based on physical and electrical design layouts specified for the purpose of savage cost reduction.

There is a LOT more to the sonic differences between these machines than can be simply attributed to facts surrounding their shared or derived DAC technologies.

I think the important thing to remember about any perceived sonic differences between a 2000, 2000XL or 3000 is that these non-show stopping variences are unlikely to be an excuse for making lame beats.

Rohan.

elmacaco wrote:were marketed to rich professionals (6G's in 88?? not for the bedroom / DJ crowd)

I hope you aren't trying to say that's what a 60 cost.
The 60 was $3,300.

OK 3g's, still, pretty pricey at a time when the dollar was high.

yo Rohan lol at "Savage cost reduction" Ha!!

Yeah, they all work, they all have been used to make great music, we're just talking about why we prefer it, most people take it for granted that more features = better, but it really isn't like that, better is totally subjective, better for you might be worse for me, but the bottom line is that there are differences, and when people ask why certain things happen, it is good to have people like Rohan to really lay it down.

could there be more things involved than ad/da converters to have different sound characteristics? cause the 3k really does sound different to me...

to truely know the answer to this one, you will need a special tool.


it is called a bumpometer, it is only made in afghanastan, it comes with an animated dvd.(afghanastanimation) they run around $700, and are sometimes found on e-bay. They are pretty rare considering all the trade embargo's.

I've got one for sale if anyone needs it.

Lord Toranaga wrote:...it comes with an animated dvd.(afghanastanimation)

This is Johnny Chimpo. Look for this symbol on the bumpometer; if it isnt there, you have a cheap knockoff.

peace to tic-toc


brothers of the same mind...UNKIND!

the 2000's were made on the cheap

Yeah you say it.
hallelujah

Lampdog wrote:

elmacaco wrote:timestretch is cool, but I would say 90% of XL users on't use it at all, or hardly ever

I never use it. It just sits there patiently while the world passes it by.

I'm in the 10%. I definately use it...but more for sound tweaking rather than tempo/pitch adjusting.



As far as the 3000 bumping more than an XL, could it be the placebo syndrome?


It seems like this is only an issue if you do nothing to your input sound when you sample.
If you EQ on the way in, or compress, or use pre-amp on the way in, it seems like it would make any slight sound difference in the sampler a non-issue.