Ren or 2000xl?

ceasi wrote:I was hoping u said no. .

you know what though? I am wondering how large the variation between two different machines of the same model.. I've heard that when you put two roland tr-808 machines side by side... they both simply dont sound the same. I am wondering if the 60, 3000, 2000/xl are alike... they say the xl and 2000 have the same sample engine but I find the 2000 sounds better. It seems a bit brighter in the low end and rolls off a bit in the high frequencies... or maybe i'm just crazy? it's odd... I dont know. But I do know that in a daw... using eqs and what not... you can aim for a sound that is close, you can chop and be selective the way you do on the mpc.. and you can sequence/program to make it sound close.... and most people wont know.

It's definitely the filter in the XL that gives it a "sound". It's a cheap and easy way to get sounds to gel (I used to use it on everything, including hi hats), but there's no magic to it.

The cleaner the sound that hits the DAW the better IMO. You have a much more neutral starting point for processing that way.

Coz wrote:It's definitely the filter in the XL that gives it a "sound". It's a cheap and easy way to get sounds to gel (I used to use it on everything, including hi hats), but there's no magic to it.

The cleaner the sound that hits the DAW the better IMO. You have a much more neutral starting point for processing that way.

yea 2 me, the 2kxl had punch, those stero outs sounded amazing, I could never get my bounces to sound like tht comin from my daw. I have worked on the 2k and 3k, but never owned them, just the 2kxl.

ceasi wrote:I could never get my bounces to sound like tht comin from my daw.

It's a battle of wills sometimes working with a DAW. Don't let it win.

I tracked out a nice groove from the 4K last week... processed, tape saturated, compressed, eq'd, stereo enhanced, added decent reverb to some parts, and other basic mixing stuff. I loaded up the 4K project earlier and it sounds better just coming from the main outs!

Back to the drawing board...

i think it has to do with the fact that the mpc has a volume independent from the computer... ie: you have it cranked and running hot into the interface... so it's kind of like you are maximizing the sound you're hearing.. could that be?

mr_debauch wrote:you know what though? I am wondering how large the variation between two different machines of the same model.. I've heard that when you put two roland tr-808 machines side by side... they both simply dont sound the same. I am wondering if the 60, 3000, 2000/xl are alike... they say the xl and 2000 have the same sample engine but I find the 2000 sounds better.

i think that's because the 808 is way more analog though. you've got a lot of components affected more noticeably by heat, age, climate, strange voltages, etc. mpcs of the same model are basically carbon copies of each other with, likely way more robust, analog pathways just for the final output stages.

knowhatimsayn?

ps: there's a great video of one of the hartnolls from orbital / longrange giving a tour of his studio and he demonstrates this effect on an 808 and you can really hear it even over youtube.

mr_debauch wrote:

ceasi wrote:I was hoping u said no. .

you know what though? I am wondering how large the variation between two different machines of the same model.. I've heard that when you put two roland tr-808 machines side by side... they both simply dont sound the same. I am wondering if the 60, 3000, 2000/xl are alike... they say the xl and 2000 have the same sample engine but I find the 2000 sounds better. It seems a bit brighter in the low end and rolls off a bit in the high frequencies... or maybe i'm just crazy? it's odd... I dont know. But I do know that in a daw... using eqs and what not... you can aim for a sound that is close, you can chop and be selective the way you do on the mpc.. and you can sequence/program to make it sound close.... and most people wont know.

Somewhat related to that, I have 2 XL's here. They don't sound the same. It's subtle and if I didn't own both probably would never notice the difference. The one that appears to be older has better bottom end, the newer one sounds almost identical to my 1000 and 2500, less low end definition and that neutral sound the newer machines are known for.

I also have noticed that the newer XL has a different hue to the case paint and the LED's are much brighter than the other unit. So maybe Akai sourced slightly different components on the last of the XL's, although everything looks the same in both units internals. Perhaps the older XL just has more "burn in" as I know it was left on for days at a time by the previous owner. The cleaner sounding newer one was clearly not used at all, had factory texture on the buttons still and was purchased last year.

^ yes, the 808 was just an example that I remember being pointed out...

not to mention there may be variable resistors (or components) in those older units that are set by default at the factory but over time never been tuned up etc...

for example, in the s900, there are actually some pots on one of the PCBs that can be tweaked with a philips screw driver that adjusts the output for each voice I believe... in the service manual it tells you how to check each one with a multi meter and at what amount you should have each one set at... maybe these might be adjusted at different levels from unit to unit if they were not kept up to date.... or as you said, parts being worn in.

I know this could start an e-battle, but for me either all legacy MPC's color the sound or none of them do (including the 60). Your right most people couldn't hear an audible difference using an XL but most people probably couldn't hear the difference using an MPC60 as well.... They are all going through analog circuitry, they all are using a resolution that are half of todays proffessional recording standards. I really don't think you can say one colors and one dosnt because of 4 bits, or because of 4.1khz, or because of circuits built 3 years earlier..

When i first got my classic i tried loading some sounds off disks vs sampling and there was definitely a subtle warming. Of course the XL/classic dont color as much, but it has its own personality. Especially if your talking beyond the A/D process.

But I have yet to try an art form where there isn't one of these discussions about subtle bs like this going on constantly. When I started doing film/video people were always comparing the chips in videos cameras like this; OMG the Panasonic is so crappy because it has a 5 pixel bleed on red while canon only has 4 and offset their green ccd.

Coz wrote:

ceasi wrote:I could never get my bounces to sound like tht comin from my daw.

It's a battle of wills sometimes working with a DAW. Don't let it win.

I tracked out a nice groove from the 4K last week... processed, tape saturated, compressed, eq'd, stereo enhanced, added decent reverb to some parts, and other basic mixing stuff. I loaded up the 4K project earlier and it sounds better just coming from the main outs!

Back to the drawing board...

I hear ya, its hard trying to match the sound coming out of the mpc in a daw, it just doesn't have the same characteristics.

Coz wrote:It's definitely the filter in the XL that gives it a "sound".

I agree 100%. it murders the 2500.

are you guys talking about that nothing special low pass filter?

Yeah that low pass. Not the best but I do like better than the one in my 2500.