Is it just me or....

dustymaestro wrote:You guys really need to stop with the misinformation.

You ready?

What you call midi jitter on the mpc 5000 is considered better than a tight drummer who can play meter in real life. If a hardware sequencer has a max 5 ms of "random shift" (not that random if you look at it), it can't be called "sloppy", because the best option of a real drummer is to be at around 15ms of maximum shift. Is it really that sloppy as some of you claim?

The MPC 5000 sequencer is designed to keep time. It cannot do this. They didnt design in with random slop in mind. The fact it does have slop is poor engineering.

It is no coincidence MPCs gained a legendary reputation for groove. Why do you think that was:
Secret timing code?
Little gremlins which live inside MPCs?
A built in artifical conscience?

None of the above. It was the MPC60 and 3000s excellent time keeping ability.
Nothing at all to do with fairy tale myths which were perpetrated for many years - and to some extent still are, as your currently proving. No secret codes, no voodoo magic going on. Simply excellent timing clocks. Add a bit of super accurate swing and it sounds like magic. But if that 3000 and 60 clocks were drunken sailors the MPC brand would NEVER have gained a reputation as groove masters.

Not all MPCs were blessed with superior timing clocks - the MPC5000 being one of them which has a maximum variation between any two consecutive sixteenth note intervals of 138 Samples. In comparison the 4000 has a maximum error rate of 1 sample and the 3000 has 5 samples. But to understand what this means when you have multiple tracks playing multiple sound sources would require a 30 page essay. In a nutshell the jitter is compounded the more you have going on. Imagine 20 tracks simultaneously spitting out random jitter in a heavily syncopated tune.

When I move a note in my MPC4000 a few ticks back or forward ( essential groove design) I'm 99% certain that note will play back in the exact position I intended it to be. With the 5000 my rate of chance falls to less than 25%. Shifting notes around in an MPC5000 (ie groove design) is almost a waste of time becasue I'm at the mercy of a sloppy timing clock. If your fine with that's cool.

The tightest hardware MPCs are the 4000, 3000 and 60. The newest kid on the block, the Ren is the tightest of them all because its sample accurate. Do you think Akai would have been better adding in some random jitter to the Rens code? That's the excuse your making for the 5000.

And why dont we have some random jitter introduced in to Daws sample accurate audio clocks. I mean, we all want a bit of slop, its desirable as you suggest...Of course if our Daws introduced random jitter there would be arms up in the air.

In real life, these things arent pronounced as you make it seem. You would have to stop listening to the music and focus in on jitter.





Wait, wait, wait... there, wait, wait, wait jitter! aha there you are.

Ive always liked the random feature in Live's impulse sampler. I wish mpcs had something like that.

MPCdawk wrote:The timing on the MPC 4k or 5k isn't the issue with regard to real drumming.

The problem is the amount of work you need to do to replicate the feel of a real drummer. Just think about using a simple ride cymbal - when a real drummer continually hits a ride cymbal in part of a track the subsequent hits choke off the decay of the previous hit so when using a ride cymbal sample you have to account for that.

Then there's all the variability with where the drummer actually hits the cymbal; almost every square inch produces a slightly different timbre. It's a lot of work to get samples to sound like the real deal.

As for mega gig piano samples, yeah yeah. Any piano sample can get your point across. If you have one, and that's the hard part...

dustymaestro wrote:Again.... It works great if your sequencing hardware. I actually prefer some of the looseness. It backfires when syncing to a computer.

Great, you prefer random looseness in a drum machine/sequencer, I would rather know it is playing back in time, and if it needs looseness then it can be added.

No idea what this backfiring when you sync it to a computer is all about, but you keep mentioning it.

dustymaestro wrote:Your problem is your caught up with "superior" My logic?

No, you are caught up in thinking the MPC5000 is superior and a flagship, I know it isn't, you have some sort of problem with other people thinking that the MPC4000 is superior and a flagship.

That is your problem.

dustymaestro wrote:Do you know what happens during sample rate conversion? If you mix a project at 96 and have to go down to 44.1 for todays commercial format. Changing to a higher sample rate on my system means changing other pieces as well. Your talking out your ass.

I know exactly what happens during sample rate conversion.

Why do you have to sample rate convert anything?

Why do you have to run your whole system at a higher sample rate just because your MPC is?

Just run your MPC at 96kHz and record it's outputs as analogue, you don't have to run everything at 96kHz just because your MPC is.


You love the sound of the SP1200, would you run your whole system at 26.04kHz/12bit if you were using one?


It is your ass that is doing the talking for you, and it seems slightly retarded.

dustymaestro wrote:My view on these things arent biased. They all have their pros and cons. Whats good for you doesnt work for everybody. Get over the title of "flagship" It is a marketing thing.

I don't have to get over anything, you are the one that has a problem with it, so it is obviously you that needs to get over it.

That it is a marketing term makes no difference, the term is used to differentiate models, and was used to make the MPC5000 seem it is the flagship MPC of the range, just like MPC4000 was used to make it seem the flagship MPC at the time.


The fact is that the MPC4000 has a fully featured sampling engine, the MPC5000 has a reduced functionality phrase sampling engine, it is obvious, it doesn't matter what works or doesn't work for anyone.

dustymaestro wrote:Is it just me or........did you twist my words all around.

Didn't twist anything around, just pointing out the bullcr ap that you are carrying on about.


Now you have changed tune from a 5GB piano to a 2GB rhodes.

What MPC5000 is going to load a 2GB rhodes sample FFS?

You are retarded, there is no point in trying to have an argument based on logic, when the other person clearly has no idea of what logic is.

Go back and read my post's. One of the early one's say there is no best. I dont claim the 5000 as superior.

My 4000 will be using the toslink connection.

Fully featured at a crippling ram capacity?

Yes, im slightly retarded. You my guy are unbelievable. Reading comprehension skill?

dustymaestro wrote:Go back and read my post's. One of the early one's say there is no best. I dont claim the 5000 as superior.

That is great, you can say whatever you want.

I claim the MPC4000 is superior to the MPC5000 in most ways that matter, timing, sound quality, and sample engine features, and is more suited to being called the flagship MPC than the MPC5000, many others agree, you are the only one that is having a cry about it.

dustymaestro wrote:My 4000 will be using the toslink connection.

'If' it sounds better at 96kHz than 44.1kHz, in terms of your samples not sounding screechy, it would be better to use it at 96kHz and record the analogue outputs instead.

But, it is a modern high resolution 96kHz/24bit sampler, it is simply not going to sound like an 26.04kHz/12bit sampler like the SP1200, which you are using as a comparison of a sampler sound that you prefer.

Do you have any examples of this screechy sound? The exact same synth sound/line recorded into both the MPC4000 (at 44.1 and 96kHz) and the MPC5000, as an example/comparison of this 'screechy' sound the MPC4000 has that you are talking about?

dustymaestro wrote:Fully featured at a crippling ram capacity?

Yes, fully featured sampler, the sampling engine gives a lot more control over the sample playback, keygroups, layering, filtering, etc., etc.

You know it is, that is why you refer to the MPC5000 sampling engine as being a phrase sampler.

Not really that crippled in terms RAM capacity compared to most other hardware samplers.

This is an MPC5000 vs MPC4000 debate.

The MPC5000 has 192MB max RAM, the MPC4000 has 512MB max RAM.

Since playing back large samples seems to be so important to you, the MPC5000 is more crippled than the MPC4000, even though neither of them will work with the 5GB pianos or 2GB rhodes samples that you insist on using as examples.

dustymaestro wrote:Yes, im slightly retarded. You my guy are unbelievable. Reading comprehension skill?

I am comprehending everything you are writing just fine, maybe you need to work on your communication and logical thinking skills?

You need a mirror.

Ok I'm back that was a good meal.

To you this is about the best. To me that's how suckas think.

You really need some help. Beyond this equipment thing, your not all there. Your whole rant is mirror reflection of what you hate.

Idiot, I never said the 5000 was for multisamples. I have been showing you the unbiased view of my experience without saying " my mpc can beat your mpc up "

Cornyinaustralia

dustymaestro wrote:In real life, these things arent pronounced as you make it seem. You would have to stop listening to the music and focus in on jitter.

Wrong - timing profoundly matters. But its really to much to go on to here.

Ive always liked the random feature in Live's impulse sampler. I wish mpcs had something like that.

The random feature you mention doesn't shift the timing. As I recall it creates a pseudo doubling effect and or auto panning and maybe velocities. I cant be 100% certain. Anyway, I hated it because it actually sounded sloppy.

I think the impulse random feature can be created with the 4000. Just off the top of my head - setting up two LFOs to trigger velocity and panning would probably be in the right ball park.

Anyway, I get it, you like slop and thats fine. Many of us dont.

dustymaestro wrote:

Fully featured at a crippling ram capacity?

Yes, im slightly retarded.

Seriously, what planet are you on.
When was 512mb of ram crippling.
Even today the Machine drum I think only has 12mb.

Give me an example of why 512mb of ram is crippling - without resorting to a BS 5 gig piano scenario.
DJ Shadow made Entroducing with two MPC 60s. I dont know how much ram that is but Im damn sure its way less than 512mb. I made four albums with an s750 being the major instrument - it has 18mb of sample time. And what about all those thousands and thousands of hip hop records made with ram crippled MPC 60's, 3000's 2000xl, 4000.

You have lost the argument so have resorted to insulting Simon. Believe me, he knows his shit. Your really sounding like a pent up frustrated little noob now.

wtf has this thread turned into? I don't even know what you all are debating lmao

Just a few dudes having a bar room convo

man.... I go off and not pay attention to the forum for a few hours and come back to this..... Bahahahahahaha...

the 5000 will never be in my museum......

Ive owned a ton of sequencers.samplers and drum machines and also play percussion ectect.I had no problem with bad timing with the 5k and ive owned 2.And thats sitting right next to a 4k,mduw,rm1x and sw ectect.You get the point.But hey,i dont midi sync them.Just BPM and stop/start ect like decks.Most of my stuff is recorded in real time.

dryad-66,

I am the opposite of you. ALL of my gear is midi synced and bad timing is no beuno in my setup. I know tiny timing errors are not the end of the world but come on. Akai has made amazing sequencers and stepping back and allowing slop like the 5000 has in is an embarresment. Thanks Numark...........