Why Does the 3000 Bump more than the 2000xl

Parts VS. Implementation.

lso remember that when releasing the 2000, they had split from Roger Linn to save costs, and many professionals at the time understood the Linn Machines to be superior, while Akai would not want that to be true, since competing with your own old products doesn't make you any money.

That also explains the reissue of the 3000, obviously they were still exchanging hands at high prices, and cutting in to new MPC sales (much like now) so much that they decided to get in on that action with the MPC 3000 LE.

I trust my ears, there are differences, you should see Ntalec's post in another thread where he breaks it down. I believe it is the SP-1200 for your 2KXL thread.

elmacaco wrote: the drums fit together more when all are 12 bit, more so on the SP with the lower sampling rates.

Thats so true!!!

Cheers from a former Darwinite

First off we told you already.....the Roger Linn design is everything....its the whole engineering process that went into the machine from it's very sound infrastructure. Deal with it....Listen to Jay Dee's early/mid 90's beats....no comparison!

DRUMZ.1

elmacaco wrote: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.

awesome description. i have an XL and havent really been looking into a 3000 because they are so much (still these days...thats gotta say something) but you make a lot of good points. ive used time stretch on my XL, but whenever i know i have to use it its just a hassle. i just use logic for that now, which is faster, easier and more reliable. also you are soooooo right about basses on the XL. its subtle, but you can def hear just something lacking. i think its the sampler they used for the 2000 and XL. its just cheap. now, i throw samples in Logic to boost is up, EQ it, compress it and that helps a little bit, but that sampler does take a toll sometimes. all of this can fixed of course NOW, but i think when these machines were coming out the 3000 knocked the classic and XL out of the water. my 2cents. makes me want to cop a 3000 now

keep rockin'

Dude you bumped a thread from 2005 to respond to some one who probally is never going to read it. Why?

Back from the dead

Jim Beats wrote:Dude you bumped a thread from 2005 to respond to some one who probally is never going to read it. Why?

i was doing a forum search on 'playing live' with MPCs and this thread popped up...and i found it to be very interesting. didnt notice the date posted. lets keep the tone chill, dude. 2005?! whatevs man--- its back from the dead!

keep on bumpin'