old vs new

i think the snare in #2 sounds brighter/cleaner than #1. and i also think its the 2500.

Did you disable or set the output EQ flat and the compression to be off on the 2500?
I don't know if the 60 has an output EQ and compressor.

If not it would affect the punchiness and dynamics of the 2500. The compressor would round out the high frequencies too.

Overall I'm not hearing much difference at all. Any bit that is there could be tweeked in mixing, mostly it's an issue of compression and eq which is why I asked the above question. The source material is not good enough to really do a sound quality test with.
It does seem they kept the sequence engine pretty intact across the generations which is amazing for having changed the hardware and software over the years.

Add the extra RAM, USB, CF card, Q-Links, built-in hard drive, built in CD, editing features etc. The 2500 kicks it big time. The feel and sound are so close as to not matter in a track at all.
This proves to me that anyone claiming a 60 or 3000 is the "real thing" has bought into some hype.

There's no compression because both the 60 and the 2500 are triggering my roland fantom - s via midi. Both MPC's were set to full level, 16th note with 62% swing on all tracks.

#1 is the 2500.
#2 is the 60.

my bad.
I thought these were being played back in the MPC's and not just using it as a sequence engine.

boomspot wrote:There's no compression because both the 60 and the 2500 are triggering my roland fantom - s via midi. Both MPC's were set to full level, 16th note with 62% swing on all tracks.

#1 is the 2500.
#2 is the 60.

So I picked #1 as swinging better and someone else thought #1 was the 60.

Hmmm.

I have another request which might delve deeper into the mystery of the 60 vs. 2500: It is clear that 62% on the 2500 is not the same as 62% on the 60 since we have a moving phase going on when you put them together.

And given that the 2500 seems to groove a little better, try notching the 2500 down to 61 and try again. If the mix of the two phased less, then we would have an even closer match.

However, at this point it looks like the 2500 (and I am assuming the 1000 since they share mainly the same engine) either is the same or even a little better than the 60 if my ears aren't decieving me (which they probably are).

Another question. I wonder if this test holds up on different swing settings . . .

The phasing thing is not as informative as people may think because previous tests have shown that the mpc's timing is not sample-accurate anyhow. so the phasing could just be caused by random variation rather than a systematic timing difference.

i bet that the same sequence played twice from the same mpc, would still phase when the 2 'takes' were compared.

i'd say the most technical way to check for a 'swing' difference would be to trigger a very short impulse-like sound at 16th note intervals and just zoom right into a grid and make a comparison between the two files for a few bars. If you plotted the mean/variance of any timing difference, you could find if it was random or not...

of course im too lazy to do all that cause both machines sound good to me .

noision1 wrote:

boomspot wrote:There's no compression because both the 60 and the 2500 are triggering my roland fantom - s via midi. Both MPC's were set to full level, 16th note with 62% swing on all tracks.

#1 is the 2500.
#2 is the 60.

So I picked #1 as swinging better and someone else thought #1 was the 60.

Hmmm.

I have another request which might delve deeper into the mystery of the 60 vs. 2500: It is clear that 62% on the 2500 is not the same as 62% on the 60 since we have a moving phase going on when you put them together.

And given that the 2500 seems to groove a little better, try notching the 2500 down to 61 and try again. If the mix of the two phased less, then we would have an even closer match.

However, at this point it looks like the 2500 (and I am assuming the 1000 since they share mainly the same engine) either is the same or even a little better than the 60 if my ears aren't decieving me (which they probably are).

Another question. I wonder if this test holds up on different swing settings . . .

yeah, i think i'm done comparing mpc's for a while. gonna concentrate on the music i have in the works.

boomspot wrote:yeah, i think i'm done comparing mpc's for a while. gonna concentrate on the music i have in the works.

Definately a good choice. Thanks for doing the comparison!

Before we close this topic..

I thought #2 had a better groove and sounded like it had a slightly higher swing% than #1. Although this could be attributed to the swing%s not being consistent on the machines, there is definitely a difference. What happens if you turn swing off and just do quantized straight quarter notes? Is there still a difference?

I was talkin about this in the 4000 forum and it has always seemed strange to me that no one can identify what the "magical swing" is. It shouldn't be too difficult..certain beats are either getting played earlier or later, which raises an interesting question. Is there really a "one magical swing fits all" groove? Don't different beats require different grooves? Some tracks the snare comes in early, some it comes in late, and the kicks and snares fall on different beats and a mpc has no idea whether it is playing a kick or a snare. Maybe someone can comment on this, but it seems to me that if there is a magical swing on the older MPCs, it shouldnt sound good on every type of beat across the board. Just like a drummer wouldnt play late on the 2 and 4 regardless of the song, regardless of it being a kick or snare, etc...

Comments?

Vincepro wrote:... Just like a drummer wouldnt play late on the 2 and 4 regardless of the song, regardless of it being a kick or snare, etc...

Comments?

Drummers play late on snares and kicks all the time to give a drum track feel.