MPC/ MPC Forum veterans, what are your X/ Live verdicts?

Don Blake wrote:This maybe the case but as dryad-66 said, i dont believe that this test takes into account building a song in a machine. I would never suggest that taking a sample of one sound across multiple machines would alter the sound by that much however im sure i would be able to identify a beat made on a 12bit sampler compared to say for instance a MPC 4000. There is no way that all those samplers that you mentioned sound exactly the same.

The difference were very slight and the biggest change happened with a drop of 2 to 4 DB. (SP 1200) Now I could hear the difference because I was apart of the test team and knew. However, those who did not have that information was all over the place.

The Piano sample was - c9/13 sus chords played in 3 different octaves. So we could get the low and high end of the sound.

dryad-66 wrote:

CharlesRandolph wrote:
We did a controlled blind test and there really is no difference at all. The change happens with how the individual calibrate their system.

I did listen to the audio in your video. The music is lacking a bottom and very mid driven. Perhaps you should provide the direct audio, not audio from the external mic.

I also saw your inputs and master knobs. Why is the input knob turned all the way down? You'll get more out of your machine, if you unity gain your input and output to zero. Once set, you should never have to touch those knobs, unless you've changed something out, or re-calibrating your system.

You joking right.If not your a bit uptight.Your not making much sense brah.

Like i said before i don't really attach much concern in what i read about sound in the internet.Lot of stuff chatted.Im just a human who tries my best to find out about the machines and put them through there paces.I dont wear a labcoat tho.They are fricken different bro.Thats all.

That vid is not mine btw.BUT forget the lo this and not right that.Listen to the music,the sound.Its the 5000.The friggin 5000.That what it sounds like.That guy knows his machine very well.

It's recorded though a webcam microphone, uploaded to YouTube. I can hear the guys breathing though his nose. Sorry not the best reference, but yes from that video, I can tell the composer of those beats levels, are all over the place. He should leave that master fader alone and use the monitor knobs.

Personally thats my favorite MPC vid on the whole web.Ever!!!!!!!! Even tho to your fine ears its all over the place.The thing is your saying that the basic sound of the Z8 sampling engine is the same as the MPC2000?and the Numarks.I agree in the simplest terms you probably right.But ultimately.Wrong.Imo of course

Differnt years,different components and different designers will see to that.I rekon.

Cockdiesel wrote:For a sample. That doesn’t take into account the summing as you mentioned. That’s when the differences get multiplied.

It prolly not the biggest difference but it’s noticeable to some degree.

Been playing around with drum processing with the live and when tracking stuff out it sounds way different than everything all in the machine. But that also takes into account everything in each signal chain even if stuff is bypassed.

The truth is most people only think. they can hear the difference. Maybe if they are under 18 years old, have a great room with a well calibrated system, neutral monitors, and have not destroyed their hearing.

Charles has the best ears.And methods.And he thinks 'properly' too

dryad-66 wrote:Personally thats my favorite MPC vid on the whole web.Ever!!!!!!!! Even tho to your fine ears its all over the place.The thing is your saying that the basic sound of the Z8 sampling engine is the same as the MPC2000?and the Numarks.I agree in the simplest terms you probably right.But ultimately.Wrong.Imo of course

Differnt years,different components and different designers will see to that.I rekon.

There is a small differences. But in a blind test, even the best audio engineers in the world would fail.

dryad-66 wrote:Charles has the best ears.And methods.And he thinks 'properly' too

I never said I have the best ears, however I'm not going to pretend I don't know what I'm talking about. If that video is the best example of what the MPC 5000 sounds like. I can't trust your ears because you've post a video where the audio went out the MPC 5000, to some speakers, recorded over a omni directional webcam mic, edited and upload to YouTube. LOL

CharlesRandolph wrote:

dryad-66 wrote:Charles has the best ears.And methods.And he thinks 'properly' too

I never said I have the best ears, however I'm not going to pretend I don't know what I'm talking about. If that video is the best example of what the MPC 5000 sounds like. I can't trust your ears because you've post a video where the audio went out the MPC 5000, to some speakers, recorded over a omni directional webcam mic, edited and upload to YouTube. LOL

Haha you are clearly trolling now.

Don Blake wrote:Haha you are clearly trolling now.

This is the video no troll.

You cant tell anything from that video but you did a blind test. why would you need that video? im interested in whether this blind test of yours used multiple layered samples?

Don Blake wrote:You cant tell anything from that video but you did a blind test. why would you need that video? im interested in whether this blind test of yours used multiple layered samples?

That was the video that he posted, not me.

In the Blind Test they were sampled loops. We did a layer test as well. However we had to remove the SP1200 due to lack of sample time. We did not want to pitch the audio up, and then slow it down. Which would change the audio characteristics.

So just to clarify, stacking multiple samples on top of each other in order to make a beat would not changed the audio characteristics?

Don Blake wrote:So just to clarify, stacking multiple samples on top of each other in order to make a beat would not changed the audio characteristics?

In the control test, all the machines had the same samples, on the same track, with no eq, compression, effects, no panning, and very little mixer fader change.

Get over the 'quality' of the video and your 'taste' ectect........ The sound of the machine you can hear if listen to the whole video.That cannot be a 2000.Nor a 4000.Its clearly to my ears the later numark sound.Notably the 5000.As i said earlier.like it or in your case not but it has 'that' sound.Not the quality of the recording tho.It has a lot of character the producer is rincin that machine,kinda boxy and warm and a bit grungy/present.I cant really believe you are an MPC long time heavy user and you cant tell or think there's a difference between all those models.My god ///

CharlesRandolph wrote:

Don Blake wrote:So just to clarify, stacking multiple samples on top of each other in order to make a beat would not changed the audio characteristics?

In the control test, all the machines had the same samples, on the same track, with no eq, compression, effects, no panning, and very little mixer fader change.

So what exactly was this test for? You cannot say that this test proves that each sampler tested sounds exactly the same.