Spot the MPC60

max1973 wrote:The discussion is becoming philosophical...I think both Elmacaco and Boogie are making valid points. I tend to agree more with Elm, because the instrument is fundamental to the development of the musician, any classical musician will tell you that.

I play guitar (classical) since the age of 12, and started with a low budget student guitar. My teacher, when I reached a somewhat intermediate level, advised me of getting a better guitar because he said that at that point my student guitar was hindering my progress both sonically and technically. I did, and my playing just made a tremendous leap forward in every aspect. The reason was that I had already made that progress, but the cheap student guitar was holding me back. Any serious musician will tell you the same thing. Of course, I can play a **** guitar, and with years of playing, I can make it sound decent, but that's not the point.

It's not about being a gear slut, it's fundamental to the experience of making music. Same is true with samplers in hip hop. The only difference is that most samplers are objectively good samplers (which is not true for guitars!). You only need to find the one that fits you well, whether that's an MPC4k, SP1200 or A4000.

Very true words on this never ending discussion. As sparrow sugessted it would be great to just record the output of the different samplers without any added reverb nor eq. Just to hear the difference between the 'default' outputs. This could be very interesting for peeps like me who only sport 1 mpc (2kxl) and who would like to hear that sound difference everybody is talking about.

sparrow wrote:I (once again) want to point one thing out: the SP start to sound in a very unique way once you start to tune the samples. A hihat sound can sound like a completely different sample sometimes.

Also a question to max: wasn´t the eq settings in this test done in a way that would make these boxes sound even? hence removing the eventual differences between the boxes and make them apear more like each other.

I agree, but only when you tune the instruments down. I don't think the SP sounds unique in the upper register.

Also, the eq that was applied to the outputs was not designed to make the boxes sound alike. In fact, I used the same eq settings for all three. In theory (but only in theory) the eq should not have attenuated the differences b/w the machines.

To be sure, the next test will be raw.

max1973 wrote:I agree, but only when you tune the instruments down. I don't think the SP sounds unique in the upper register.

I think that the sp use some kind of sampleskipping involved in the tuning instead of just playing the samples at different sampling rates (as I guess a modern sampler does) I think it´s possible to hear this effect though no matter how the sound is tuned.

max1973 wrote:Also, the eq that was applied to the outputs was not designed to make the boxes sound alike. In fact, I used the same eq settings for all three. In theory (but only in theory) the eq should not have attenuated the differences b/w the machines.

Ok cool I just misunderstood when the eq was applied, thanks for clearing that up!


Nice initiative BTW thanks!

I'll guess that the SP has no resampling capability so when a sample is tuned down it simply repeats some adjacent sample points at a fixed 26.040 clock rate. How many samples are repeated depends on the resampling ratio.

For instance to play a sound 1/4 slower you would repeat every 3rd sample once: ie. for a ramp waveform, you'd get:

1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6, 7

This creates a distortion at 1/4 the sample rate.

A better "resampling" sampler would create subsamples
mathematically. More like:

1, 1.75, 2.5, 3.25, 4, 4.75, 5.5, 6.25, 7

An S950 would change the sampling clock itself
to match the resampling ratio. Distortion here is
less audible but depends on the precision of the
sampling clock.

Based on what i heard of those mp3's, the 1200 sounded considerably lower in level, and i think that is due to the fact that you based your effects/outboard settings on it. The 1200 bumps bass wise way more than it did in the test. It seems as though you tamed the eq so that it would compare level wise with the others, and as a result a certain component of the sp sound got lost, while the other machines, particularly the 3000 seem to have benefited. For sure the 3000 sounds the best of the 3, best swing, best punch, best clarity, and this alone proves the quality of the 3000's a/d converters which were the best you could get back in 95. If u threw the 2000 in the mix it would sound quite thin i'm sure.

PhonoquO wrote: If u threw the 2000 in the mix it would sound quite thin i'm sure.

not if they were programmed on my mpc!

dstruction wrote:

PhonoquO wrote: If u threw the 2000 in the mix it would sound quite thin i'm sure.

not if they were programmed on my mpc!

agreed...It's how you process your samples....

dstruction wrote:

PhonoquO wrote: If u threw the 2000 in the mix it would sound quite thin i'm sure.

not if they were programmed on my mpc!

Oh right, Destruction has the 1ofakind 2k classic
WORD

uh oh, El might disagree with that..

PhonoquO wrote:For sure the 3000 sounds the best of the 3, best swing, best punch, best clarity, and this alone proves the quality of the 3000's a/d converters which were the best you could get back in 95.

What am I? an ogre?

Max, dope post..
I just got here and I know its late but..

1) (First this is something I dont recall anyone mentioning); I knew the first one was the sp1200 right away, because the hihat sounded like it was cutoff. Like there was no gradual decay in level, it seemed choppy. Even with the reverb. So did the kick. Whenever you sample into the 1200, it sometimes leaves a distorted noise at the end of your sample. So when you adjust the sample end during fine tuning, you'll end up cutting off the natural decay of the sample.

2) I had to listen to the other two, two more times and I chose the second as the mpc3000 because it sounded a little louder that the third track. While this is not a scientific conclusion, it was all I had to go on. I use a 3000 a lot but I would not have been able to tell any other way.

3) So the third track had to be the mpc60 by elimination. I dont own a 60 but I do have a S950, and it kind sounded similar. And I believe they have similar 12bit engine right?

Anyway Props Max!!!

the SP is alot harder on the lowend imo..

Max, do it again please, Different break different approach (just a limiter on the mainouts, or something)
Dope Thread, can't say it often enough!

c.toon wrote:the SP is alot harder on the lowend imo...

The test obviously proved otherwise

The test proves nothing, you really need to be in the same room with the machine to really judge them.

Nino you should do a test with the 60 and the XL.

elmacaco wrote:Nino you should do a test with the 60 and the XL.

You really want him to throw the XL out the window?