Technical questions for the MPC2000xl and the MPC2000
By jrbeats555 Tue Nov 15, 2011 11:33 pm
The resampling feature on the xl takes foreverrrrr I was wondering what free software for mac I could use to change my samples from 16 bit to 8 bit
User avatar
By Lampdog Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:17 am
Tha_Skywalker wrote:thats why I never use it.

+1

Only good for very short samples, long samples will take forever as you are seeing now.

Go catch a movie, grab some food and drinks come back and it MIGHT be ALMOST finished with PROBABLY
being done.
User avatar
By peterpiper Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:10 am
I really want to know how this function is programmed and what they thought when they implement it cause I dont think this calculation need that much cpu power. Maybe a module programmed by an intern or so.

peace
By madcherokee Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:04 am
Remember, the MPC2000/XL uses the same sound processor as the S2000. This chip was also being used in the S3000 series. The S2000 and MPC2000/XL were "extensions" of this chip-set. So the OS of the MPC is more complicated than the S. So it takes more time to resample. Also, the MPC had more timestretch/resampling options than the S at that time. So it has to "think" more, too. Thats why many were waiting for the promises of the S5000 and S6000. Then, after re-releases of the MPC2000XL and MPC3000 (limited editions), the Z4/Z8 and MPC4000 (next chipset) was the hope of all that wanted better resolution at an affordable price. You could get a Kurzweil if you wanted to put a downpayment on a Maybach. But, Akai was on top of the market at that point.

Mad Cherokee
By sorgekind Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:40 pm
Any audio editor will dither your samples from *whatever* bit to *whatever bit*

freeware audacity as already mentioned
payware wavelab, bias, even a DAW will do, logic, live, cubase
although I'd use an audio editor rather than a DAW for such a simple task.
By madcherokee Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:36 pm
sorgekind wrote:Any audio editor will dither your samples from *whatever* bit to *whatever bit*

freeware audacity as already mentioned
payware wavelab, bias, even a DAW will do, logic, live, cubase
although I'd use an audio editor rather than a DAW for such a simple task.


That maybe true. Yet, the results are very "iffy". You will still have to play with the results for hours to get the "desired" effect. Even then, they will still be 16bit that sounds like 12bit and not true 12bit, 8bit, etc. That is why I have a problem with the Renaissance. It can do that at the touch of a button.... sure your right. The electronics, engineers, programming, and architecture(s) has changes since the early 80s. Hell, digital computers of today would have filled a town the size of Philadelphia PA in the 50s when the first digital computers hit the scene. Do you remember when the floppy disk was 8-inches? Do you remember when there were 13-sectored 5.25 inch floppies? How about life before the 2GB barrier was "breached"? Remember, today's hard-drive were yesterday's tape-driven systems. Hell, tapes replaced magnetic drums. Learn the history, it will clear the mystery...

Mad Cherokee
User avatar
By tapedeck Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:43 pm
just resampling sounds is unlikely to give that 'old school' effect - the sound is a combination of ad/da converters, aliasing filters, sample rate, bit depth, gain stages, etc etc.

to try and simplify it to just sample rate / bit depth is missing the point.
User avatar
By Lampdog Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:00 pm
tapedeck wrote:to try and simplify it to just sample rate / bit depth is missing the point.
User avatar
By peterpiper Tue Jan 17, 2012 7:49 pm
madcherokee wrote:Remember, the MPC2000/XL uses the same sound processor as the S2000. This chip was also being used in the S3000 series. The S2000 and MPC2000/XL were "extensions" of this chip-set. So the OS of the MPC is more complicated than the S. So it takes more time to resample. Also, the MPC had more timestretch/resampling options than the S at that time. So it has to "think" more, too. Thats why many were waiting for the promises of the S5000 and S6000. Then, after re-releases of the MPC2000XL and MPC3000 (limited editions), the Z4/Z8 and MPC4000 (next chipset) was the hope of all that wanted better resolution at an affordable price. You could get a Kurzweil if you wanted to put a downpayment on a Maybach. But, Akai was on top of the market at that point.

Mad Cherokee



really?? And even if this is true. The s3000 came out in ....95? 96? Thats 8 years after the Yamaha TX16w was build and the chips in this machine calculate a samplerate conversation of a 10 sec sample in about 5 seconds. Same goes for the 950. you can half the bandwidth in a few seconds.
Thats why I dont belive its because of the MPC2000 hardware.
Would be interesting if someone could test other rack samplers from Akai. What about the s3000? does it provide a samplerate (or bitdepth) conversation? And how long does it take?

peace
By madcherokee Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:07 am
peterpiper wrote:
madcherokee wrote:Remember, the MPC2000/XL uses the same sound processor as the S2000. This chip was also being used in the S3000 series. The S2000 and MPC2000/XL were "extensions" of this chip-set. So the OS of the MPC is more complicated than the S. So it takes more time to resample. Also, the MPC had more timestretch/resampling options than the S at that time. So it has to "think" more, too. Thats why many were waiting for the promises of the S5000 and S6000. Then, after re-releases of the MPC2000XL and MPC3000 (limited editions), the Z4/Z8 and MPC4000 (next chipset) was the hope of all that wanted better resolution at an affordable price. You could get a Kurzweil if you wanted to put a downpayment on a Maybach. But, Akai was on top of the market at that point.

Mad Cherokee



really?? And even if this is true. The s3000 came out in ....95? 96? Thats 8 years after the Yamaha TX16w was build and the chips in this machine calculate a samplerate conversation of a 10 sec sample in about 5 seconds. Same goes for the 950. you can half the bandwidth in a few seconds.
Thats why I dont belive its because of the MPC2000 hardware.
Would be interesting if someone could test other rack samplers from Akai. What about the s3000? does it provide a samplerate (or bitdepth) conversation? And how long does it take?

peace



The S2000 came out in the late spring/early summer of 1996. The MPC2000 came out just about a couple of weeks later at that time. The Yamaha TX16W, is a nice piece of hardware. Yet, we are talking about different companies with different philosophies, practices, and different hardware/software architecture, too. Also, many of the early hardware/software engineers were accomplished electrical engineers. So they understood all of this from the ground up. By the way, TX16W uses AIFF. AIFF stores more info than WAV, but does serve the same purpose for our "musical" intent, especially if you use the Typhoon OS.

The S2000 was a "cheap", I paid $1200 for mine, alternative to the $3750 cost of the S3000 and S3000-family samplers. But they did all use the same sound processing chipset. However, the OS on the S-series is not as complicated as the MPC-series. Think about it, they were called Midi Production Centers for a reason. Though MIDI is in the S-series, they are not as intense with Midi like the MPCs. At that time, the early 1990s era S-series could sample at 44.1k or 22.05k. This series also had the ability to timestretch, resample, reverse, etc. The MPC2000 sampled at only 44.1. People complained because they couldn't do more, so the MPC2000XL was born. This was an attempt to keep the people "happy". So, the resample, timestretch, MPC3000/60 compatibility was brought back. The Limited Editions of the MPC3000 and MPC 2000XL was basically to make money from the die-hard fans of the equipment. Too bad they did not make limited editions of the MPC60s. Yet, at that time, the latest "craze" was for your equipment to sound nice and 16bit clean.

Heck, if you think this is bad, you should see a couple of Roland blogs I've visited. There is a debate about the W-30 vs. the S-220, S-330 and S-550 samplers! I think the W-30 could sample at 8bit, but the latter at 15K or 30K. If only we could get the older schematics and documentation and do what Jomox has done. That would be a happy day!

Think about it, it was faster back then because the under-lying language of the hardware was almost entirely numerical. That is why it is called lower-level programming. Today, much of the higher-level programming is compiled and linked to the machine language that runs the computer. So, older samplers, via specific functions, run faster than today's counterparts. But today's counterparts run circles around room of IBM PCjrs. Please learn a bit more about the history of computers, this will help. Also, much of this can be researched via Google.

Power To The Hardware, Programming, and Electrical Engineers!!

:D

Mad Cherokee
By madcherokee Thu Jan 19, 2012 9:34 am
Here's a link that explains more about the MPC2000XL. It also contains a tip about the "Adjust" feature when timestretching. I wonder if this is in the "Making Beats With The MPC2000XL" book...

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/dec99/articles/akaimpc2000.htm

Here's some of what is being said about the 2kXL...

"In fact, when testing the time-stretching for the first time, I decided to go for the best quality (ie. the longest processing time) and was pleasantly surprised by how quick it was; a four-second sample was processed in less than 30 seconds. Now my surprise may just be an indication of how long it has been since I did a time-stretch on a hardware sampler (I have mainly been using computers for this recently), but clearly the processors used in hardware samplers have, like their more talked about personal-computer equivalents, got much faster. Indeed, it may well be that Akai chose not to include time-stretch on previous sampling drum machines simply because of the time it would have taken to process. If this is the case, then the faster speed of this processor is another clear improvement."

Something that was said about the 2k...

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1997_articles/apr97/akaimcp2000.html

"I trust you will forgive the impetuousness of your humble reviewer if I pursue this line (instead of the conventional 'this is what the box looks like', 'how you make a sample' and so on), but I feel that I may not be be alone in having been put off previous MPCs by their lack of looping. A little more detective work in the manual -- the list of expansion options, to be precise -- reveals that it has many things in common with Akai's S2000 sampler, and it therefore seems that the MPC has inherited its looping ability from its sampler cousin rather than from any dormant MPC gene. You might argue that this could be deduced from the shared numbering, but the similarities are much greater than between the S3000 sampler and its MPC numbersake..."

About the S2000...

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1995_articles/nov95/akais2000.html

"Technically, the S2000 is closely related to the S3000; it's a 16-bit sampler, mono or stereo, and comes with 2Mb of memory upgradable to a maximum of 32Mb using standard computer SIMM chips. Resonant low-pass filters give the instrument synth-like capabilities, and in acknowledgement of the importance of CD-ROM sample libraries, a SCSI interface comes as standard. What's more, sample CD-ROMs intended for other machines can be loaded in, though there may still be a little tweaking required in some cases.

As you might expect from a modern sampler, the S2000 features full 32-voice polyphony, up to 16-part multitimbral operation, and a choice of 44.1kHz or 22.05kHz sampling rates....

Sampling may be carried out in mono or stereo via the line inputs, and these will also take a mic if you don't expect to need vast amounts of gain. You have a choice of just two sampling bandwidths -- 10kHz or 20kHz.

Those interested in the Timestretch function may be pleased to know that it's exactly the same system as used in Akai's S3000. This means you can change a sample's length by up to five or six percent without altering the pitch before the sound quality starts to suffer too much. There are various settings for different types of material, and what works for drums won't produce the best results with a sustained tone. Some experimentation is in order, and because the process isn't all that fast, expect to spend some time working with it before you get the best possible result..."

This should help to give a good understanding about the timestretch capabilities of the S2000 and the MPC2000XL. Before trying to hang me, please read the articles. There's lot of data there that helps to answer some of the questions asked earlier in this post. Thanks again for your time and your consideration.

Mad Cherokee