Does the mpc 4000 groove like mpc3k, and mpc2k? - Please help

im thinking about buying the mpc4000 but i wonder if it grooves well.  ya know, the way the mpc3000 and 2000 just put the beat in the pocket. the mpc4000 has 9600 parts per quarter while the mpc3k and 2k have 96 parts per quarter(i think) this means the mpc4k sequences beats more like a computer sequencer, but i personally like the "feel" of (sequencer wise) of the 3k,60,and 2k.  can i please get your input, any comment helps.  this will determine whether i will buy one or not.  i do mostly r&b and hip hop music plus some dance. thanks in advance. do you 4000 owners like the way your sequencers grooves?[/color]

The MPC's will only `groove` as much the user can put into it.  There is no magical groove built into any of the MPC's.

As far as the ppqn, this only indicates how many ticks there are in a quarter note (hence the name: pulses per quarter note).  This just means that you can place two notes 1/960th of a quarter note apart in the same sequence.  On the older MPC's, you can only place two notes 1/96th of a quarter note apart (you might as well place them on the same tick then).  Regardless, at 120 bpm, you are talking about placing two notes 5.2 milliseconds apart or placing them 0.52 milliseconds apart.  I do not know anyone who needs that kind of resolution.  96 ppqn which works out to about 5 milliseconds is the threshold for humans to distinquish 2 sounds as being separated (this design was no accident).

96 ppqn is just about the resolution of midi, so no matter how high the manufactures make the number, the midi data is still going to have only an effective resolution of 96 ppqn coming out.  Since the sequecner and sampler coupled directly by an internal bus, I doubt this has any effect on in the internal samples and also relates to the above statements about time and distiinguishing separate sounds.

Regardless, if quantiztion is used (which is most of the time), you can throw this whole thing out the window since quantization will put the note data on the nearest note interval as set by the quantiztion amount.[/color]

In other words, it grooves better than the old MPC's, but you wont be able to tell much difference.[/color]

It seems that very few people can hear the difference. I know I do. I agree with you williamlavelle but I don't think the 2000XL has the same feel. You can get it though with a little manipulation.

No offense to MPC-Tutor or midicase.com.  I respect you guys alot, but I know what I hear. I don't think it's something magical at all. Maybe just how the operating system caculates the mathematics of it all? Roger Linn had nothing to do with the 2000XL as far as development. Maybe that had something to do with it. I don't know. I'm not an expert. I just know what I hear.[/color]

 so do you like the feel of the mpc4k?  i agree with you by the way.  when i did tracks on an mpc2k, i could tell a subtle difference when i later transferred those tracks to the mpc2kxl.  i guess im wondering what would happen if i redid the track on the mpc4000.  will it swing the same, and i dont mean by adjusting the swing value on the machine.  i think true musicians know what i mean when i say, does it groove? does the added resolution make it "too tight". does it still "feel" like an M.P.C.? one. [/color]

With respects to those who have good arguments for there not being a difference in feels, here is a good argument for the difference being real.

Internally each different machine is running an operating system.  And this is a part of the equation.  This is why computers can have different timing than dedicated machines.  A slower or faster processor is going to affect the timing of the drum machine, even if the notes are set to be triggered on a quantized grid.  

The only question I have is that can we hear this subtle shift.  All I can tell you is that my MPC2000XL is tighter sounding to me than old Roland drum machines, even with sounds on the same Q settings.

Also, and this is more speculative, perhaps the MPC adds a slight compression that we perceive as punch to the output, and thus seems to affect the timing, by making things seem more tight with the punch.

Someone could prove this once and for all actually.  By sampling the outputs of the same beat from a 2000, 3000, and 4000, and some other machines into a computer that will display sample accurate waveform data, and by lining up the first samples of the beat after sampling, and using good testing methods, any difference could be seen.  It is suprising to me that this has not been done to my knowledge.


Spoff[/color]

i agree with all of you to a certain extent.  but ive been producing and arranging music to long for me to allow what is theoretically true to over rule my ears.  these are old machines, with old architecture, made in the time of atari. i personally believe that there is something about that old mpc architecture that roger linn added that just happened to hit that sweet spot that made the mpc what it is today, and with every evolution of the mpc, it slowly leavs this behind. not saying that its not still a bad ass machine, but i HEAR, a subtle difference with each machine (each mpc). I believe this in combination with the operating systems, advanced microchip technology, entirely different processors, and better superconductivity in relation to the microchips have contibuted to or are responsible for this difference. now to hear some of you say, depite all of the obvious changes that you cant hear a differences, that all the advancement over the years has only effected the operations(added more bells and whistles) and not the feel of the  machine seems  highly implausable. dont get me wrong, i love the new enhancements in the sequencing software that runs the mpc4k and 2kxl(the older mpc were definetly limited in that area) but it seems in order to have this they were forced to sacrifice that classic mpc groove that created so many hits.  im sure the mpc4k will spurn out some hits too, as will the mpc2kxl, but still the undisputed king of groove, is the mpc60, mpc2000, and mpc3000.  my reason for saying this is because i HEAR a difference.  in the older mpcs the sequencer is more fluid, runs less rigid, and your songs can almost feel like a live band is playing, (no reference to the ppq) the music feels more like its "in" the beat, not just layed on top of the beat. And this drum machine dares to groove with all the tenacity and "zeal" of a real drummer.  In the newer models (MPC4k & MPC2kxl) they still groove, but the beat is less fluid, "tighter", and music tends to sound like it was just layered on top of the beat, thats cool, but the whole point of all this equipment is to emulate the reall thing as much as possible, which means the music should flow within the beat, not just on top of it as if the beat is just a drum track. the beat is the heart and soul of the song, and it usually is most effective when you music flows within it, not just on top of it.  

It seems to me that there are people out there who think all sequencers are the same , that the only difference are technical specs, os, manufacturer, and  color. this is not true, because all that technology eventually affects the feel, groove, swing, whatever you want to call it of the instrument.  ask any quantum physisist and they will tell you, that technological advancement will inevitably effect the object of advancement.  whether that effect will be positive or negative, depends on the awarenesses of the creator , controlers or  manufacturers.  so, were the creators at akai thinking of tech specs and mathematics like some people here, or were they thinking about music, about what a drum machine should be.  This whole argument illustrates why Roger linn and akai ended their relationship.  I believe he saw that Akai was leaning more and more toward  selling and marketing and less towward creativity.  He saw that they brought in technicians to evolve the mpc product line, instead of musicians, which roger linn used to develop the original mpcs.  So with each advancement of the mpc, Roger linn was gradually faded out of thier creation. The mpc 2kxl and teh mpc 4k represent the evolution without roger linn.  is it a coincidence that this is also where the changes in the groove feel of the mpcs start to take? Comments please.  :;):[/color]

i gotta get involved in this one.

i own an mpc2000xl and mpc60v3.10

1.There is a definite difference in the way the machines handle the swing setting, this has nothing to do with the actual quantinizing of the samples...its much more apparent on the 60.

2.The illusion of groove may actually be how the machines handle the velocity of your hits, this is most apparent when using an MPC60.

3. If there wasnt some magical/special way MPCs handle sequencing/groove, why even use them then???

Thats all i know.


[/color]

and none of this really matters anyways. The buyers of music don't give a rats ass what thier favorite song came from, as long as they like the song,thats where thier money is going.[/color]

Who cares about the buyer, this is my hobby and I like discussing it and im sure the rest of the majority of the board agrees...[/color]

hobby or not, PROFESSIONALS in the business do care about the buyer as the buyer is the one supporting music maker.[/color]

Well, i know first hand how the business is a crock of #### (especially from a producers & artists perspective), and im saying that i dont care.

If you make a number one hit on Reason, more power to ya, but this IS a MPC forum, so thats what we discuss. NO biggie.[/color]