the sound of the 4k

compaired to the 3k, xl, 5k, 1k?

way different? or a blend of sound. IMO the newest machines lack a low end presence when layering... however the 3k and XL do this wonderfully.

I was wondering if the 4k seems thin in the lows when pitching down, or if it bangs like the 3k and xl when you layer using the Low End Theory.


Thanks.

Test it out I have a 4k and a 3k it sounds to my ears what you put in it. Of course through the 4k has higher sampling rate up to 96khz. It isn`t so much machine to me it is choosing the right sample and what you do to it. Your question is subjective to the user.

blue is so polite

Agreed.

But you didnt tell me anything. Your response sounded like "yeah well if you were as dope as some of us, you could make gold on a yamaha Q-10".

Regardless,

Thats like saying all mics are dope cause they are mics, and you get out of them what you put into them.

What I was asking... (for the people who care to articulate into words subjctive materials such as sound, which, some of us around here do)... Does the 4k have a similar sound to any of the other machines in the MPC line? Or what is it closest match... If it had one.

Anyone else?

It sounds like what you put into it. I can tell you from experience that the 4k is one of the most expressive MPCs I've used & I own/owned the 60II, 1000, 2500, 4000 & 5000. The 4k isn't a character unit like the 60s and 3ks, it's a cleaner unit. You can search and find this out.

Good luck.

Dor

Thats like saying all mics are dope cause they are mics, and you get out of them what you put into them.

People have learned to give that generic type answer to sound comparisons because they are so subjective. Also, not everyone will hear subtle differences between samplers. This is usually due to inadequate monitoring gear and also some folks just don't care too much about that. So whenever you give an opinion you get jumped on by someone saying there is no difference. Usually from someone who has never A/B compared the two machines through a decent monitoring set up to even know the difference. Then that gets followed by an "it's the person behind the gear and skills that matter". Of course, this is true but usually no one really asked for this common sense information in a comparison thread. I think people say that so they won't get flamed for having an opinion.

It sounds like what you put into it. I can tell you from experience that the 4k is one of the most expressive MPCs I've used & I own/owned the 60II, 1000, 2500, 4000 & 5000. The 4k isn't a character unit like the 60s and 3ks, it's a cleaner unit. You can search and find this out.

boomspot is on point. The 4k just does not have much color. It is very detailed and clear. Some say that about the 1k but it is very different. The 1k/2500 doesn't add color to the sound but they do subtract some of the low end and warmth. Kind of a less than what you put in. The 4k is just what you put in. It is very capable of producing a beefy bottom end but if it isn't there it will not add it. The highs are not harsh and you get tons of headroom for layering. You can layer pads easy on the 4k without distortion were it is more difficult to get a good layer from the 2500. As stated, the older MPC's will add color or muddy the highs so it gets real subjective at that point.

On a positive note the key phrase was Test it out to my ears, to my ears, which has nothing to do with pro or not. Another key word is my ears, not your ears as it is all of us hear things differently and all of us do have different setups too.

Which is why I stated obviously to judge for yourself I own both but prefer the 4k really cuz it a great part of my workflow and yes I like the bottom it has. However I work with a great mixer and compression to bring more of my bottom out hence a great studio board is needed besides the mpc too.

Anyway on the positive tip great samples to go into a great sampler is my point it starts with what we choose to sample along with how we use it inside the mpc and of course you have more options within a 4k to modulate the sounds.


If I were you realistically start with a 3k if you can find one and later move up to a 4k if you feel you need to move up. Go by the one you feel the most and it shows in your music. I started on a 2xl.

I got the 4k and would trade for any mpc. has xl and 3k - and the 4k really puts out what you put in...I still use my ensoniq epsm/asr10 to sample then to the 4k for all sequencing. i get dope results.

+1 on the ensoniq joints. They are the best sounding samplers imo.

One thing that confuses me with this post is people thinking the XL has a good low sound. I used an XL forever, it was my first MPC, and I think the newer models sound puncher and less thin then the XL. I solved all my sound issues by just buying a 60 (drums) and using ensoniqs for sampling.

4K sounds absolutely great to me

I must admit I think ensoniq made a great sounding engine in the ASR line!, everything (besides the slow envelopes) is superb!! .. love the start mod to index option ..can take a dead hihat sample and make it live it upp in your loop .. the 4k can do this aswell by modulation the startpoint of a sample but the Ensoniqs sounds much more authentick,(brillantly clever programming on Ensoniq´s behalf.. and the FX are plain cream .. an asr and a 60 will imo give much more charaghter and indeed sound better then a 4000 stand alone (the sound of the 60 is also amazing!!)... but in a studio I can emulate the 60 via tubes and analouge filters and high quality fx/eq to get closer to the ensoniq sound (although the charagter will never 100% be the same) .. we can face it:..Akai has always been punchy and bright .. that being said there´s quite a noticable dif between: 16/44 and 24/96k ....and an engeneer might say its a day and night senario..

so if one considers the 24/96k factor... it simply sounds better, (but it allways depends on what you are doing though isn´t it ... ... so carry on ..