Noticeable latency

nd with the new ones its kinda perfect.Just left me a bit cold/uninspired.

I can understand this, its personal indeed and the "atmospheric" color can inspire us cats.

.The analog part is missing.

Yeah, that's what I thought you'd mean. You call it analog but is has nothing to do with analog xD..

And it just a known fact that the MPC2500 was awful in regards of timing and (for me) also the sound coloring. It's clear to me they tried to color the sound but horribly failed. (they added so much low that it ruined everything you recorded with it, it's really awful when you side-by-side compare it to 4000. 4000 was always the most "neutral" (or "flat" how you should call it.)

The clear flat input in the new boxes indeed is a (very) good thing. So you can decide and mix yourself any direction you want, instead of having just 1 color and be bound to that..

Groove and feel is all in your head mate, there is no "MPC Swing". The reason people still talk about that is because the MPCs were one of the first digital instruments that introduced to use no quantize... all the swing and groove we hear, is the producer playing drums.

If you want full control of your swing, skip midi and record directly to audio.

Cases wrote:

nd with the new ones its kinda perfect.Just left me a bit cold/uninspired.

I can understand this, its personal indeed and the "atmospheric" color can inspire us cats.

.The analog part is missing.

Yeah, that's what I thought you'd mean. You call it analog but is has nothing to do with analog xD..

And it just a known fact that the MPC2500 was awful in regards of timing and (for me) also the sound coloring. It's clear to me they tried to color the sound but horribly failed. (they added so much low that it ruined everything you recorded with it, it's really awful when you side-by-side compare it to 4000. 4000 was always the most "neutral" (or "flat" how you should call it.)

The clear flat input in the new boxes indeed is a (very) good thing. So you can decide and mix yourself any direction you want, instead of having just 1 color and be bound to that..

Groove and feel is all in your head mate, there is no "MPC Swing". The reason people still talk about that is because the MPCs were one of the first digital instruments that introduced to use no quantize... all the swing and groove we hear, is the producer playing drums.

ASQ10/MPC60/MPC3000/MPC2000/MPC2000XL/MPC1000 = 96 PPQ.
MPC4000 = 960 PPQ

Anyhow not really talking about swing.Just general older tech.BTW-the analog part is obviously the inputs and outputs.Example-have a look at the output board on the 4000.Pretty busy.When you sum all the parts up en route you gather some sh*t ........ which ain’t all bad.The era we live in now is clean city !!!!!!

Cases wrote:

nd with the new ones its kinda perfect.Just left me a bit cold/uninspired.

I can understand this, its personal indeed and the "atmospheric" color can inspire us cats.

.The analog part is missing.

Yeah, that's what I thought you'd mean. You call it analog but is has nothing to do with analog xD..

And it just a known fact that the MPC2500 was awful in regards of timing and (for me) also the sound coloring. It's clear to me they tried to color the sound but horribly failed. (they added so much low that it ruined everything you recorded with it, it's really awful when you side-by-side compare it to 4000. 4000 was always the most "neutral" (or "flat" how you should call it.)

The clear flat input in the new boxes indeed is a (very) good thing. So you can decide and mix yourself any direction you want, instead of having just 1 color and be bound to that..

I wish this was true on coloring part, but in a blind test, 99.99% couldn't tell what machine was used.

Cases wrote:Groove and feel is all in your head mate, there is no "MPC Swing". The reason people still talk about that is because the MPCs were one of the first digital instruments that introduced to use no quantize... all the swing and groove we hear, is the producer playing drums.

Actually the LM 1 was the first drum machine to feature timing correction (quantization) and swing.

CharlesRandolph wrote:I wish this was true on coloring part, but in a blind test, 99.99% couldn't tell what machine was used.

That "which one sounds better" test I forget what I said, but I'm pretty sure I started off with the "it all sounds about the same to me"...

16-bit samplers with 44.1khz sample rate, playing content back without pitching/stretching all sound pretty bog standard. I'm still pretty sure most of what people are hearing for differences even in the analogue space tend to be due to over driving ins/outs... subtle compression... psychoacoustics... I'm not going to rule out poor DACs or other weird implementation choices...

Folks are gonna like what they like... hate what they hate... and do as they do

Well people justifiably hate on Numarks and sometimes the 2000 cos they can sound inferior because in some ways they are due to cost cutting.But then thats the reason some people love them.As for latency playing the pads ive not noticed anything different.Timing wise i have not done official tests.

I do know that in the 1000 and 2500 the master EQ and compressor are fierce.If adjusted correctly really boost the sound.And it ain’t pretty but it is essential imo.....Thats always part of the sound to me.

NearTao wrote:That "which one sounds better" test I forget what I said, but I'm pretty sure I started off with the "it all sounds about the same to me"...

16-bit samplers with 44.1khz sample rate, playing content back without pitching/stretching all sound pretty bog standard. I'm still pretty sure most of what people are hearing for differences even in the analogue space tend to be due to over driving ins/outs... subtle compression... psychoacoustics... I'm not going to rule out poor DACs or other weird implementation choices...

Folks are gonna like what they like... hate what they hate... and do as they do

This is true... but people will keep trying to convince themselves that it's "different". Kind of like going "DAWLESS" while using nothing but DIGITAL AUDIO EQUIPMENT.

Bro, do you DAWLESS?

Nah, I DAW just as much.

CharlesRandolph wrote:

NearTao wrote:That "which one sounds better" test I forget what I said, but I'm pretty sure I started off with the "it all sounds about the same to me"...

16-bit samplers with 44.1khz sample rate, playing content back without pitching/stretching all sound pretty bog standard. I'm still pretty sure most of what people are hearing for differences even in the analogue space tend to be due to over driving ins/outs... subtle compression... psychoacoustics... I'm not going to rule out poor DACs or other weird implementation choices...

Folks are gonna like what they like... hate what they hate... and do as they do

This is true... but people will keep trying to convince themselves that it's "different". Kind of like going "DAWLESS" while using nothing but DIGITAL AUDIO EQUIPMENT.

It really kinda freaks me out that you cant tell any difference between your One and your 4000.Game over.....

But then I remember your MPC forums troll........what a joke..

dryad-66 wrote:It really kinda freaks me out that you cant tell any difference between your One and your 4000.Game over......

Why would being honest, freak you out? If more people were honest with themselves, they wouldn't need to buy a room full of gear that does the same thing.

CharlesRandolph wrote:

dryad-66 wrote:It really kinda freaks me out that you cant tell any difference between your One and your 4000.Game over......

Why would being honest, freak you out?

Because your tone deaf

dryad-66 wrote:Because your tone deaf

Please answer: What MPC did I use to make this?

MPC 500

Just kidding. I have no idea.

Eyalc wrote:MPC 500

Just kidding. I have no idea.

It's so obvious. The crunch, the low end, the snap. Listen to how the sample has that SP 1200 / Manley Slam kind of compression in 200 Hz area. That filter resonance should be a dead give away. There is only one MPC that can produced this sonic signature.