Nym wrote:and to think - several blind tests done on these forums as to the sound differences between MPCs and folks still fuss like it actually makes a big difference in the end result...as they listen in untreated rooms, probably while shaking their heads decisively (unknowingly changing what they're hearing)
These blind tests always throw out straight sounds though. Don't the 3000's filters have a sound to them compared to the mpc2500? Obv the mpc60 sounds very different because it's 12-bit. Each different machine can create a sound unique to each machine, not just because of it's internals, but also because of the tools available to it's OS.
Nym wrote:audiophiles are wack, and producers need to focus on their composition rather than their sound. leave the sound part to people who understand and USE the science. if you can't afford it (i can't afford it) do the best you can do at home.
Where do you draw the line between the sound and the composition? If you have one sampler that gives out a nice crunchy, defined sound when you play a sample a couple of octaves down the keyboard, but the other sampler plays it a lot duller, why would you choose the dull sound above the one that sounds crispy (unless you wanted the dull sound ofc)? f.e. My Casio FZ-1 sounds a lot better than my mpc2500 when playing samples at lower octaves.
I'm sure there are a lot of artists out there that create very loose compositions, but rather base their music on the effect that the sound has on the listener.
