Is it me, or do the newer Mpc's soud "too clean"?

sl23 wrote:I think he meant that they sound better because they are less dynamic. As in, less dynamic range. It's like the old cassette and vinyl vs CD thing years ago. CD's are invariably better quality, but some argue cassettes and vinyl sound better because there's less dynamic range. They sound warmer, less clinical.

If you reread his comments what you're saying still wouldn't make sense. He said, "The majority of those who have both the new and the old MPC have some imaginary nostalgia of them sounding less dynamic" ... So saying it that way means they don't have less dynamic range, but people nostalgic memory make them think they did.

I guess we'll have to wait for the guy to clarify the statement.

hyena wrote:whatever, i have both mpc live mk1 and mpc 1000 in front of me right now, all wired up to the same mixer , same channel type (allen heath gs3), flat eq. as said, the live sounds really good, but when you hit the 1000 there's no competition, the sound is fuller, harder, more present. it's like when i compare recordings i made with the sound card on a daw (motu ultralite 24bit 96khz) to the ones i make on the fostex r8 (which is very far from being an high end multitrack tape machine...8 tracks on a 1/4" tape...), the analog tape wins hands down, no competition. it really depends on what you want and need. i personally need that my main drums hit the hardest they can, this is also linked to the genres i play\produce. each of us has its own needs and proclivities. fair enough!

In order for this comparison to make sense we would need to know your gain staging setting on both units.
-Like where do you put the master vol knob: 12, 3 o'clock or max, on both MPCs when your sending them to your mixer or whatever?
What's the master output level on the 1k: 0db, -6, -12?
-What are the vol levels in the 1k drum program in the 2 places that control the vol, are they both set at 100/max?
-On the Live what's the vol levels in the program set to in the the places that can affect the volume like: the program, pad, layer, mixer, master/individual outputs levels?
-Have all the sounds been normalized?

Maybe it's user error on my part, but I can get the the Force to get wayyyy louder than the 2500 without distortion.

i already gave some of the info...
mpc 1000 (jjos2xl) with-6db on master output
mpc live mk1 master volume all way up
same mixer channels, same gain, line level input via TS jacks (unbalanced, my mixer (allen heath gs3 24 channels 8 bus inline studio desk) is all unbalanced -10dbv connections (not the best, i know, but the mixer has cool preamps and eqs and plenty of channels, more than 50 if you count tape returns, stereo returns etc...)
i intentionally left the samples inside programs on the 1000 to default 80 volume (not the full 100).
tried to keep everything as raw as possibile on both machines.

anyway, even without making full on scientific tests, it's just common sense and some ear. as told, they're different, and the live is perfectly usable both in production and on stage, i have no doubts about that, i performed on many stages with my live mk1. but i cannot unhear what i hear, and the 1000 matches exactly my old memories of it. it's an "in your face" sound. i'm on the industrial break beats\hardcore\jungle\breakcore\noise side of the musical spectrum, so for me this roughness and power and dynamic is really important. perhaps if you make boombap the current line might be better as the rough sound of the 1000 might require a bit more work to sweeten it up...idk just rambling here...

B-Wise wrote:
Maybe it's user error on my part, but I can get the the Force to get wayyyy louder than the 2500 without distortion.

well, to be 100% fair i haven't done any scientific test on single sound max level before distortion, but the overall psychoacoustic experience with the same programming with same sounds (with max velocity) on both machines, gave me those results, great in your face sound on the 1000, every detail clearly defined, a bit more opaque and blurry and less powerful (less transient definition) on the 1000. it's the overall feel that is very different, 1000 in your face without doing nothing, on the live to get similar results i have to tweak sounds, add compression, transient design, eq... the same experience i always had with the DAWs by the way. that's what always drove me towards hardware gear... but of course not all hardware gear has the same behaviour... i had terrible experiences with the octatrack, the current mpc line eats the octatrack alive imho...

hyena wrote:i already gave some of the info...
mpc 1000 (jjos2xl) with-6db on master output
mpc live mk1 master volume all way up
same mixer channels, same gain, line level input via TS jacks (unbalanced, my mixer (allen heath gs3 24 channels 8 bus inline studio desk) is all unbalanced -10dbv connections (not the best, i know, but the mixer has cool preamps and eqs and plenty of channels, more than 50 if you count tape returns, stereo returns etc...)
i intentionally left the samples inside programs on the 1000 to default 80 volume (not the full 100).
tried to keep everything as raw as possibile on both machines.

anyway, even without making full on scientific tests, it's just common sense and some ear. as told, they're different, and the live is perfectly usable both in production and on stage, i have no doubts about that, i performed on many stages with my live mk1. but i cannot unhear what i hear, and the 1000 matches exactly my old memories of it. it's an "in your face" sound. i'm on the industrial break beats\hardcore\jungle\breakcore\noise side of the musical spectrum, so for me this roughness and power and dynamic is really important. perhaps if you make boombap the current line might be better as the rough sound of the 1000 might require a bit more work to sweeten it up...idk just rambling here...

I asked you some basic questions & answers a only some & give me a bunch of info I didn't asks for. Why?

re-read my answer, i gave you my levels. as told, i tried to leave em as raw as i can, of course the gain staging steps on the two machines are different, hence you'll probably never have the same settings. but as told, i tried to match them the best i can.
i added some extra info yes.
man, chill. we are just trying to share infos and knowledge. no need for that attitude.
given those two platforms are so different, it's almost impossible and pointless to do a scientific comparison.
but as a producer\performer since 2001 i have the experience to know what i hear and to draw conclusions, i'm not here to persuade you or anybody else, you can draw your own conclusions and are totally entitled to them.

Did you try using the live and adding the mpc2000, etc, simulation fx to a track or mix?

hyena wrote:re-read my answer, i gave you my levels. as told, i tried to leave em as raw as i can, of course the gain staging steps on the two machines are different, hence you'll probably never have the same settings. but as told, i tried to match them the best i can.
i added some extra info yes.
man, chill. we are just trying to share infos and knowledge. no need for that attitude.
given those two platforms are so different, it's almost impossible and pointless to do a scientific comparison.
but as a producer\performer since 2001 i have the experience to know what i hear and to draw conclusions, i'm not here to persuade you or anybody else, you can draw your own conclusions and are totally entitled to them.

Still saying a bunch of nothing. How you gonna tell me your trying to share knowledge but can't answer the all the basic questions I asked you which would help me know how your getting the results your claiming. Then say talk about my attitude. Nevermind if it's too much.

B-Wise wrote:I asked you some basic questions & answers a only some & give me a bunch of info I didn't asks for. Why?

He literally ended the paragraph by stating that he is rambling.

I don't understand how it's so hard to comprehend an Italian writing on an MPC forum rambling about how they love the shi*ty sound of a MPC 1000.

B-Wise wrote: ... In order for this comparison to make sense we would need to know your gain staging setting on both units.
-Like where do you put the master vol knob: 12, 3 o'clock or max, on both MPCs when your sending them to your mixer or whatever?
What's the master output level on the 1k: 0db, -6, -12?
-What are the vol levels in the 1k drum program in the 2 places that control the vol, are they both set at 100/max?
-On the Live what's the vol levels in the program set to in the the places that can affect the volume like: the program, pad, layer, mixer, master/individual outputs levels?
-Have all the sounds been normalized?

Maybe it's user error on my part, but I can get the the Force to get wayyyy louder than the 2500 without distortion.

According to my humble experience these figures don‘t matter much, if at all.
Sound processing has changed a lot over recent decades, in chip technology, board manufacturing and (not to forget) software algorithms.

I have 3 active systems from around Y2K: Creamware Scope, Pro Tools TDM 5 and an MPC4000.
The „modern section“ is mainly iPad and MacMini M1, interfaces Audient ID22 and iConnectAudio4+ .

The difference was immediately obvious when I got the ID22 almost 10 years ago.
Compared to Scope the sound was „boring“, but otoh very precise.
It revealed details in mixes, that Scope just didn‘t make audible, had a -90db noise floor on mic channels fully cranked ... and it was a bargain at just 500 bucks.
(today you get it doubled as ID44 for the same price)
The iConnectAudio4+ is clearly inferior in audio (ok, half price), but has it‘s own special advantages. And it also features „modern sound“ and the current small size SMD circuit board.

RME and UAD (frequently quoted as references) have an even more „pristine“ sound, or rather... „no character at all“.
Character instead is added via software, UAD built a whole business model on this scheme.

I use the iPad almost exclusively for music and it‘s stunning how „clean and precise“ the majority of apps perform. (only quality ones considered).
It‘s a clear difference to the (pre) Y2K DSP technology.
Comparison was (essentially) made in the digital domain, sending stuff to the same conversion and monitoring unit.

If I understood correctly that‘s basically the same what hyena expressed in his posts.
Observation and some reasoning about technology fundamentals.

Today no one can afford to release a product based on pre-Y2K hardware.
It would be economic suicide.
That‘s why InMusic builds current units as they are and emphasizes the software aspect.
(not in UAD quality, but at a fraction of UAD prices)

Telefunky wrote:

B-Wise wrote: ... In order for this comparison to make sense we would need to know your gain staging setting on both units.
-Like where do you put the master vol knob: 12, 3 o'clock or max, on both MPCs when your sending them to your mixer or whatever?
What's the master output level on the 1k: 0db, -6, -12?
-What are the vol levels in the 1k drum program in the 2 places that control the vol, are they both set at 100/max?
-On the Live what's the vol levels in the program set to in the the places that can affect the volume like: the program, pad, layer, mixer, master/individual outputs levels?
-Have all the sounds been normalized?

Maybe it's user error on my part, but I can get the the Force to get wayyyy louder than the 2500 without distortion.

According to my humble experience these figures don‘t matter much, if at all.
Sound processing has changed a lot over recent decades, in chip technology, board manufacturing and (not to forget) software algorithms.

I have 3 active systems from around Y2K: Creamware Scope, Pro Tools TDM 5 and an MPC4000.
The „modern section“ is mainly iPad and MacMini M1, interfaces Audient ID22 and iConnectAudio4+ .

The difference was immediately obvious when I got the ID22 almost 10 years ago.
Compared to Scope the sound was „boring“, but otoh very precise.
It revealed details in mixes, that Scope just didn‘t make audible, had a -90db noise floor on mic channels fully cranked ... and it was a bargain at just 500 bucks.
(today you get it doubled as ID44 for the same price)
The iConnectAudio4+ is clearly inferior in audio (ok, half price), but has it‘s own special advantages. And it also features „modern sound“ and the current small size SMD circuit board.

RME and UAD (frequently quoted as references) have an even more „pristine“ sound, or rather... „no character at all“.
Character instead is added via software, UAD built a whole business model on this scheme.

I use the iPad almost exclusively for music and it‘s stunning how „clean and precise“ the majority of apps perform. (only quality ones considered).
It‘s a clear difference to the (pre) Y2K DSP technology.
Comparison was (essentially) made in the digital domain, sending stuff to the same conversion and monitoring unit.

If I understood correctly that‘s basically the same what hyena expressed in his posts.
Observation and some reasoning about technology fundamentals.

Today no one can afford to release a product based on pre-Y2K hardware.
It would be economic suicide.
That‘s why InMusic builds current units as they are and emphasizes the software aspect.
(not in UAD quality, but at a fraction of UAD prices)

IMO, you're worse than the other dude. Bunch of nothing that I asked for...maybe I want that specific info that I asks for to do my own tests.

I stated that I can get the Force to sound louder without distortion than the 1k/2500. So unless
the Force sounds way better than the new gen MPCs which I doubt, the only difference in results that we're getting could probably be found in getting the answers to my questions. He may be right & the 1k sounds better, but I'm getting the opposite. Funny thing is that it would've been faster & way less writing if he did just answered my basic question....but no.

Also no hard feelings towards you & you're just trying help, but if he'd answered all my questions I wouldn't be wasting my time replying to you still without know he settings. Have a cool day

sl23 wrote:I think he meant that they sound better because they are less dynamic. As in, less dynamic range. It's like the old cassette and vinyl vs CD thing years ago. CD's are invariably better quality, but some argue cassettes and vinyl sound better because there's less dynamic range. They sound warmer, less clinical.

It's snot needed. mf's be bumpin mpthrizzlez... may as well make the mp3 bang and the wav will be consistent. So what if the fi aint so high. Nothin worse than hearing those high freq transients expose themself once you render it to mp3. Just target the lowest bounds so its consistent. None of your listeners care about the nuance of 16-20khz... they will never notice it and your dog will thank you.

B-Wise wrote:... Also no hard feelings towards you & you're just trying help, but if he'd answered all my questions I wouldn't be wasting my time replying to you still without know he settings. Have a cool day

No problem, I could have written: there isn‘t any use in comparing figures of completely different hardware, even more if the software base also changed significantly.

The result will be as relevant as entering values from a real Model D’s dials into a (top quality) virtual analog Model D.
Or (to stay in the digital domain) copy data from a DX-7 patch to a software DX-7.
There will always be a difference, some may consider it relevant, some don‘t mind.
To drive a unit harder without distortion, doesn’t tell anything about audio character or quality. There’s a difference in level which can easily be compensated (if needed).

Of course MPCs (old or new) are complex items (like any digital audio system).
That‘s why I added some examples that (imho) represent technology changes of recent decades.
I simply accept them and use each generation for what fits an idea and sometimes even mix them. It‘s a very, very subjective terrain anyway.

ps: no need to reply, this is just an explanation of my previous post

There’s always this situation,over the years,wether on GS or here,someone comes in the thread and says the 1000 blew up the spot and sounds amazing on a big system then a crowd jumps on them saying it’s bs and they don’t know what there on about (i mean,how could the lowly 1000 that sounds like nothing) or at least its just clean and non descript.for kids.A numark low budget machine for wanna bees.well its unique.and very loud.and has a compacted,no nonsense sound character.its not exactly the same as the 25000.say what you like.very similar,very close relative.but is a little grungier round the edges.through that master EQ and compressor.its a lil Beasty.also can sound terrible sometimes which I think is what most people allude too.

Note-I’m actually in the camp now where I think (for what it is) the (my) Live 2 does not sound clean enough.even with serious gain staging these something off inside.freaking lovin the software atm tho.drag and drop audio,some great features i been uncovering now I got that big screen and mouse,that sound better from the computer/soundcard (more clarity) and much more control.i like using it in stand alone mode sometimes tho.i think I’ve just been overcompensating with effects to try to spruce up the sound…..duh

Postie brought me a Maschine plus today.My god……refined.also some great effects and distortions,modelling ectect.But sometimes I just wanna go back to an old,ugly,noisy sequencer/sampler….))

B-Wise wrote:IMO, you're worse than the other dude. Bunch of nothing that I asked for...maybe I want that specific info that I asks for to do my own tests.

man, you are so disrespectful i will ignore you from now on. grow up.

Telefunky wrote:No problem, I could have written: there isn‘t any use in comparing figures of completely different hardware, even more if the software base also changed significantly.

exactly what i think, and i think your explanation about the hardware differences are spot on. what matters to me is what my ears and my experience tells me, the rest is totally irrelevant.

dryad-66 wrote:someone comes in the thread and says the 1000 blew up the spot and sounds amazing on a big system then a crowd jumps on them saying it’s bs and they don’t know what there on about

well, i'm maybe too naif if i hope we can have a relaxed exchange of experience, i have and like both machines, i'm no fanboy of one or the other, i just state what i perceive with my senses having the opportunity to test those machines under different circumstances. i think it's fair and i'm not obliged to exhibit scientific tests, numbers or whatever to anyone.
signed: your "rambling italian" (wtf...)