MPC 60 swing compared to the Roland TR series

Is there anyone out there that has both of these machines or used both, and can tell me how the two quantized swings compare. I' have a Roland TR-626 that I first started out on and I can't be able to get the same type of swing and feel on my 4000. The Tr feels more quantized and straight forward to the 4000's loose feel. I noticed the MPC was also more loose in the 2000 I used to have also. I'm looking for a sampler more tighter, or that can mimic exactly or near exactly how the TR behaves. My 626 is on it's last leg. I'm just asking this because I heard the 60 and 3000 just have a different feel to how they quantize drums than from any other MPC.

it's probably the ppq value. look at a korg es1 or esx1, they are very TR-series in their feel and functions

The TR's use 24ppqn, the 60/3000 96ppqn, the 4000 has what was it, 480 or 960? Those are hard quantized machines, so you won't get the same strict swing feel unless you go in multiples of 4 percent I think, try 54, 58, 62, 66, 70, 74, that should get you closer.

Another thing you could do is use the 626 to trigger notes from the 4000 and record the midi data from the 626 and then try to match it with the 4000 sequencer. I record notes from other sequencers all the time in my 60 and it can really be a hoot. using the 626 to sequence samples might be kinda fun, and you would definitly get that swing.

Thanks el.

. I' have a Roland TR-626 that I first started out on and I can't be able to get the same type of swing and feel on my 4000. The

ive used the 626 and yes not the same- in fact not sure shuffle (as roland calls it ) is exactly hte same but could be wrong- did find one of the shuffle settings good for that oldskool house sound but nothing pertaining to a swing used in hiphop or rnb

greg

FYI

The Linn Shuffle:
"Linn's shuffle feature was unique in the drum machine world, and it's found on every device he's manufactured.... On the front panel of all but the earliest LM-1s is a column of six red LEDs, labeled from 50% to 70% in increments of 4%. Linn explains: 'In order to create a sixteenth-note swing or shuffle feel, you unevenly split the timing of an eighth-note, thereby delaying every second sixteenth-note by some time factor. The LM-1 percentages signify the interval between the first and second sixteenth-note and between the third and fourth sixteenth-note, and so on. If you want both notes to play perfectly even - no shuffle - you would select 50%, which means 50/50. If you make it one clock later, it would be 54/56, or 54%. Delaying it two clocks makes it 58/42, or 58% for the first half and 42% for the second half.'"