How does the 4000 sound SO good?

JusDaFied wrote:DA converters only matter when you are sampling, not playing from CD.

Hence the term Digital to Analogue converter.

If it's already digital (and you are just importing it, not capturing it), it aint being converted.

Analog audio is being 'captured' via AD converters not DA. (analog to digital). The AD step is indeed skipped when importing, recording or playing directly from a digital soundsource. But what happens to the digital audio in your system somewhere between the CD player and the analog mixer Hmmm... I think I'll just keep my money in my pocket...

Jusdafied,
you might be a robot with digital ears,
but the rest of us live in the analogue domain

I don't think anyone was on the A/D map, we are on the flip side, I just mentioned it to compare the motifs internal sounds to ones you'll be sampling..

& personally I agree to do a legit A/B pro test you’d defiantly ensure a very clean signal path

but Dommdady the only thing you'd really have to worry about is the eq curve on the mixer as long as its the same monitors,.. using the same cables and same channels is getting into it a bit analy from your standpoint (you; are in a store,

Akais charaghter has always been detailed with punchy rich highs and mids, drums are bound to sound better on akais

And what else other than bit & k rate, A/D D/A ,dither algorithm and quality components effect the sound?, do companies use different codes for their wav files ? if someone could please explain

analog ears here. also analog vocal cords.

glide wrote:And what else other than bit & k rate, A/D D/A ,dither algorithm and quality components effect the sound?, do companies use different codes for their wav files ? if someone could please explain

So you're asking,
"apart from like the ENTIRE electronics, hardware and software inside a piece of music gear, what else affects its sound?"

Um, the colour of the case?

Lord Toranaga wrote:analog ears here. also analog vocal cords.

Would you expand yourself with digital ones if you could?

feline1 wrote:

glide wrote:And what else other than bit & k rate, A/D D/A ,dither algorithm and quality components effect the sound?, do companies use different codes for their wav files ? if someone could please explain

So you're asking,
"apart from like the ENTIRE electronics, hardware and software inside a piece of music gear, what else affects its sound?"

Um, the colour of the case?

I would say your personal taste, some drugs and a donut.

nah, y all got it all wrong

it's the reflections of the sound environment

MPC 4000s are known for being always well centered in music environments

thus always creating the best sounds !

simple as A B C...

so beshides the hardwhare as was pointed out , companies have dif coding of wav files? that actually effect the sound, so a wav file in an akai softwhare sampler would sound dif from that same wav. in a Roland softwhere sampler? I'm not talking filters/envl speed ect,...just the pure wav. with a clean singnal to the same outs and one will clearly hear dif ?, if so thanks for the info, I thought wav. was somekind of an universial coding thing.. but fack what do I know about pc i work with an Mpc .. now off to buy some donuts

The Microsoft RIFF WAV file format *is* a method of coding PCM audio -
if it's being coded in a different way,
then it's not a WAV, it's something else!

Go search on Microsoft's site if you really wanna know about RIFF ....

ehat was the point of this thread again?

to bust nuts on a penguin head

glide wrote:so beshides the hardwhare as was pointed out , companies have dif coding of wav files? that actually effect the sound, so a wav file in an akai softwhare sampler would sound dif from that same wav. in a Roland softwhere sampler? I'm not talking filters/envl speed ect,...just the pure wav. with a clean singnal to the same outs and one will clearly hear dif ?, if so thanks for the info, I thought wav. was somekind of an universial coding thing.. but fack what do I know about pc i work with an Mpc .. now off to buy some donuts

Well, one thing that I can say from experience. The exact same sample on an MPC 2000XL sounds different then when played on the MPC 4000, on the same speakers, mixing board, wires. We did try switching cords and they did sound stay the same, sounding different. What the difference was, is completely up to the person that was listening to it, I had a different opinion then my band mate that was present. But we did agree that they sounded different and switching the cords didn't help any the difference stayed the same.

So whether that's the way each handles a wav file or if it's in the Digital to Analog decoding I"m not sure. The MPC 4000's was definitely cleaner and seemed to have better high end and midrange, where as the MPC 2000XL seemed to me that the high and mid range were a bit more filtered or eq'd out and so it seemed to sound "bassier" on the 2000XL but that was more because of some of the high and mid range that seemed to be gone, so more emphasis ended up on the bass.



Dave

At least with these modern digital instruments,
you can be fairly sure one MPC4000 sounds like another.

I mean you'll read bucket loads of drivel on the Interweb from
people saying about what their analogue synth sounds like etc etc -
when of course, no two miniMoagues ever sound the same etc etc

How did you load the cd on the Motif. That's the only one that doesn't have a cd-rw. Hmmmmm ..........