12 bit, big deal?

so just been resampling some ish on my 2kxl and was wondering, whats the big deal with the 12 bit samplers? Is there a difference between a sample recorded at 12 bit on a 60 and the same sample after 12 bit resamplin on the 2kxl? Or is the big deal with the 60 just down to the grooves (also was wondering if the sound is down to the converters on the 60 or blah blah blah) anyway thanks in advance for any contributions peace

jurrell wrote:also was wondering if the sound is down to the converters on the 60

yeah that...


the machine sounds different from the xl... two different machines, made with different components. the xl came out when? 15 years later?

24/96 is a big deal my samples sound huge in the 4k

2KXL4life wrote:24/96 is a big deal my samples sound huge in the 4k

and my samples knock harder then yours in my 60


(that I then record into 24 on the computer )

mr_debauch wrote:

2KXL4life wrote:24/96 is a big deal my samples sound huge in the 4k

and my samples knock harder then yours in my 60


(that I then record into 24 on the computer )

I don't believe that. I never had a 60, but I've had the 2000, the XL, and now the 4000...the 4000 is a effin monster man. There's no way drums on the 60 can compete w/ the punchiness and crispness of the 4000.

mr_debauch wrote:

2KXL4life wrote:24/96 is a big deal my samples sound huge in the 4k

and my samples knock harder then yours in my 60


(that I then record into 24 on the computer )

Love that ninja edit...

kaybee wrote:

mr_debauch wrote:

2KXL4life wrote:24/96 is a big deal my samples sound huge in the 4k

and my samples knock harder then yours in my 60


(that I then record into 24 on the computer )

I don't believe that. I never had a 60, but I've had the 2000, the XL, and now the 4000...the 4000 is a effin monster man. There's no way drums on the 60 can compete w/ the punchiness and crispness of the 4000.

dude I was kidding... it's all a bunch of bullshit.. first of all my 60 didn't record the same samples as his 4000.

second of all, it knocks harder when you turn the volume louder.

third of all, the 60 has a rugged sound.

I had several different mpcs and the 60 has my favourite sound. I never owned a 4000 though even though I would like to some day if I trip and fall over a stack of money. Thing is, you get what you put in it.... and okay 1987 designed converters do help too.

kaybee wrote:

mr_debauch wrote:

2KXL4life wrote:24/96 is a big deal my samples sound huge in the 4k

and my samples knock harder then yours in my 60


(that I then record into 24 on the computer )

I don't believe that. I never had a 60, but I've had the 2000, the XL, and now the 4000...the 4000 is a effin monster man. There's no way drums on the 60 can compete w/ the punchiness and crispness of the 4000.

You have never had one but yet you know?? Well you are wrong. 60 bangs harder than 4k, deal. Yes I have a-b'd them and the 60/3k sound destroys the newer mpcs (at least the 2kxl, and 4k, those ive personally compared to the 60/3k). Is the 4k a capable machine that on paper feature wise sh!ts on the 60/3k? yes. Does it actually sh!t on the 60/3k sound wise?? NO. Fact.

You have never had one but yet you know?? Well you are wrong. 60 bangs harder than 4k, deal. Yes I have a-b'd them and the 60/3k sound destroys the newer mpcs (at least the 2kxl, and 4k, those ive personally compared to the 60/3k). Is the 4k a capable machine that on paper feature wise sh!ts on the 60/3k? yes. Does it actually sh!t on the 60/3k sound wise?? NO. Fact.[/quote]

I didn't say I know, I said I don't believe it. I still don't. It might sound warm or have a distinct sound of sorts, but 24bit vs 12 bit do the d @ mn math. & anyways the 4000 can make a sample 12 bit if you want, not to mention fx like power and crisp that make your drums really bang. the 60 was released in 1988 and the 4000 was released in 2002. that's 14 years of technology and improvements. the converters on the 4000 are ridiculous and it actually has a REAL sampler that's better than any other mpc. if your sampling your drums through the 60 then no way in hell do your drums sound better than on the 4000. you can make drums that sound like a 60 on the 4000, but you can't make drums like the 4000 on the 60. word. the 4000 is the best MPC ever made man, c'mon now. it's a spaceship in comparisson!

kaybee wrote: you can make drums that sound like a 60 on the 4000, but you can't make drums like the 4000 on the 60. word. the 4000 is the best MPC ever made man, c'mon now. it's a spaceship in comparisson!

while the 4000 is more advanced... I will have to stop you there. The 60 is very often emulated but never duplicated.


you cant say 12 vs 24 bit do the math... atari said that for the jaguar (which was 64 bit) and we did the math... the games were garbage. kasumi ninja anyone?

nobody is saying the 60 is more advanced then the 4000.... however the 60 sounds different and more rugged then the 4000.

the 4000 may be a "real sampler" while the 60 wasn't designed with the same things in mind. this was made as a drum sequencer first... where you could record your own drum sounds... it is mono only.

12bit SND (not wav) in this machine can not be done by the 4000, the components on the 4000 are not the same. Not saying the 4000 is less good but different for sure and that is one of the percs to the 60. drums knock in the 60.

12bit SND (not wav) in this machine can not be done by the 4000, the components on the 4000 are not the same. Not saying the 4000 is less good but different for sure and that is one of the percs to the 60. drums knock in the 60.[/quote]


As far as the technical aspect of .snd files, they contain all the identical sound data as a WAV file just in a different order. So there is no audio loss or gain by using .snd or not.

crushes that. but to answer this dudes question, 12 bit a big deal? no, not at all. mono drums...wow.

Folks just need to make music and stop with all the minuscule details. Unless your making money off a professional audio review, why are people A/B'ing the warmth of sound from a machine?? If you got that much time on your hands, make some beats! I've never owned a drum machine that couldn't hit hard, and if you think yours knocks harder, then GREAT! Prove it! Post the music! 24bit can sound like 12bit, but 12bit CAN'T sound like 24bit.

MPC-60 = Dirtiest sounding MPC. (12bit)
MPC3000 = Warmest sounding MPC. (16bit)
MPC2000 - 5000 = Clean sound (MPC500-5000 have compressors/eq) (16bit)
MPC4000 = Most accurate sound. (24bit)
Pick your poison.

kaybee wrote:12bit SND (not wav) in this machine can not be done by the 4000, the components on the 4000 are not the same. Not saying the 4000 is less good but different for sure and that is one of the percs to the 60. drums knock in the 60.

As far as the technical aspect of .snd files, they contain all the identical sound data as a WAV file just in a different order. So there is no audio loss or gain by using .snd or not.

crushes that. but to answer this dudes question, 12 bit a big deal? no, not at all. mono drums...wow.[/quote]

excuse me, but the mono sound i was talking about had to do with the intent of the sampler... it was to point out the design difference between the 60 and the 4000... you have to keep in mind that what is now being done with samples was not done before machines like the 60 and the sp etc....

and yes, snd has similar sound data... but it is not compiled the same as wav. Not saying there is much difference... however your point crushes nothing because you thinking resampling things down to 12bit on your 4k will be identical to the 60 when you are absolutely dead wrong.

hell I could export on fruity loops at 12 bit... will that sound like a 60? no.... it wont. why? because the sound didn't pass though '87 converters and equipment.

that is like saying reason's scream 4 distortion on the "tape" preset sounds identical to tape.... no it doesn't.

well I would compare the quality of music that was coming up in the early nineties to the crisp and computer sound of now...
Take for example the first Wu-Tang Clan album from 93 -- there was some dirty drums in there, so I guess the hardware producers were using back in the days did dictate the sound quality and vibe. If you ask me I always preferred that old dirty grimy sound of the old MPC's.

I knew just from the title of this thread that it'd be a hotly contested subject.

My two cents:
12 bit is grungier, usually packs more punch.
16 and above are just cleaner, for better or worse. Garbage in Garbage out.

I've owned a 12 bit sampler (Korg DSS 1) and while the sound was awesome out of the box I found it wasn't anything I couldn't achieve with a little creative EQ. I liked it but ultimately sold it because in today's workflow I just found it (like most vintage samplers) to be too much of a hassle for a little bit of extra "oomph" in the low end.

The DSS 1 also has SICK analog filters but that's another subject entirely.