3000 to 4000 swop (is it worth it!!)

This is not for me.

A friend of mine owns a 4000 and has been offered a 3000 le on a straight exchange.

Is this worth the deal!!!

I really don't think so in terms of the fact that the 4k has way more features and is a lot more versatile a machine than the 3000. However the 3000's are going for about a grand more than the 4k on E-bay. Maybe your friend should swap...sell the 3k....buy another 4k....and buy some more gear with the left over money....maybe a sound module or something would be nice.

Why do these machine hold there prices.........Do they sound alot better?

Why are they so expensive still? do they sound alot better?

Apparently the 3000 since it's 12 bit has a warmer sound. It's rumoured to also have a nicer swing to it's sequencer. As well as all the "pro" options like the 8 outs etc. etc. comes standard. Well except for the memory, but that shit is easy to come buy and is cheap nowadays I think cause it's standard memory simms.

It's also expensive because it's discontinued and therefore rare, has all the features that dudes love about the 60 and is expandable up to 32mb RAM like the 2xl.

I'm sure there's more to it, and some dudes more "edumacated" on gear can better answer that question.

Oh yeah...you can get that same sound with 4k tho! So all that crap about the 3000 and 60 being better is BS. Especially since even though they can sound clean and with the right eq and effects etc etc. one can make those sounds sparkle, they just don't have that very clean and punchy sound that the 4k has when it's at 16 or 24 bit.

I have experience with the 60 1st hand not the 3000 mind you, but I'm guessing they are very similar.

ONE wrote:Apparently the 3000 since it's 12 bit has a warmer sound.

the MPC3000 is 16bit. so that warmer theory is no good on the 3000 series. only the mpc60, 60II, s900, and s950 had the legendary 12bit grit/warmth that people associate with early Akai's.

i've said before and i'll say here again: there are only two setups i'd settle for. thats either the mpc4000 or an mpc60 (upgraded) with a z4(or z8 ) or maybe an s5000 (s6000). the in between do nothing for me (and i've owned them all). i've worked pretty extrensively on the mpc3000, and being a mpc60 owner at one time, i'd never take a 3000 over the 60. the seq. is better/same and you get the 12bit warmth on the mpc60. every other feature people fuss over can be mainly had with the Roger LInn upgrade on the 60, and it its sample power you need, get a good rack mount sampler. then you'll have a champion setup then!

so no, i think it's a rottin' deal. but that's me personally

peace

actuel

Oh for real????? I thought the 3k had the 12 bit sound too....hmm

here the official specs: http://www.akaipro.com/int/products/arc ... index.html



peace
actuel

Now that I think about it....the producer's who do use a 3000 do have a cleaner sound than the one's rocking a 60. Even Shadows sound got much cleaner when he switched to a 3k (well 2 3k's).

To get that 12bit sound on the 4k, all you have to do is resample it. It's all there, 8, 12, 16 and 24-bit, in three different qualities.

while resampling at 12bit suffices, it is not the same as the 12bit on the mpc60. mainly because of the built-in AD conversion technology was vastly limited/different compared to today's AD/sampling technologies. also sampling in at 16bit or 24bit and resampling 'down' to 12 or 8bit will not give you a 'true' lo-fi warmth, if that is what you're after. it's a viable solution and one the renders reasonbly good results, but it is kind of 'emulating' for lack of a better word. again, resampling is nice and i use it all the time, but there is a difference.

peace
actuel

ACTUEL, dropping science for the true & living gods!

One thing alot of people forget when talking about the "sound" of the old machines is that ALOT of the samples people were using was sampled at 45rpm (off a 33 1/3rd record) and then pitched down to save sampletime. Of course theres other factors aswell: people dont use the same needles or dj mixers or other equipment as they did in the late 80s / early 90s. I agree that the AD's of the old machines had a different sound, but the other things I mentioned had a big impact too. Plus all the stuff that came out was recorded in all analogue studios and mastered by professionals. Alot of the underground stuff that comes out today sounds flat and boring because of factors like - recording at home on a computer, not having mixing or acoustic skills, not having a professional mastering it etc etc...

All Im saying its way more than the ad converters that comes into play when talking about "that" sound.

Kalei

I completly agree!!!

'that sound' is a term I questioned quite often, and have stopped since understanding the processes involved in sound design.

its not just the hardware or software, but the user behind it.

the whole MPC sound hype is one big BS**t in my opinion. having owned an mpc 1000 for a month, then a 4000 for 2 and a half months and now an XL, i can say that the whole sound thing is a load of rubbish. Any differences are purley to do with the internal converters. this is not purposely done.

And if you are importing samples (which most people do nowa days) via USB (Aksys) or Compact flash, you are actually bypassing the internal mpc converters anway. so saying that mpc xxx sounds different to mpc xxx is not valid...period.

The feel thing is different though, and i can confirm that the 3 mpc's i have used all feel slighty different.

MPC 1000 is found tight, until i met 4000, which was extremely tight (Intel Armstrong CPU i guess), and now the 2000xl, which is a step back, but does what i need, and does it well.