MPC 2500 VS. MPC 3000

Can someone tell me about the SOUND of the 2500

I know the features, i can read them everywhere, but i cant see something about the sound of the machine: one of the things why people still got there 60 and 3000....

is the sound like the 4000 or more like the 2000? What kind of sound engine does it got

the mpc2500 sound like the mpc2k(xl) and others mpc came after the mpc3k . The sampler and the features are differents.

sensei wrote:
Jahrome, why do you use the MPC to loop samples? What advantages does it have as a sampler as opposed to something like Battery or Kontakt through Nuendo?

Do you own a soft sampler? Have you tried one? Perhaps, you don't like them? No?

You are joking right

The MPC 2500 (as well as the others) were designed to sample lloops/phrases in addition to sequencing MIDI instruments. The main advantage of the MPC over such programs as Battery and Kontakt..is that it is dedicated hardware designed with specific functions. Of course, you can pretty much do the same thing with Battery/Kontakt through Nuendo. In fact, I use both Nuendo 3 and Battery 2. But the MPC is much more enjoyable to work with. Going the software route, you still need a good low latency sound card/audio interface...MIDI interface/MIDI controller..and also a decent PC. The MPC is all these things. I won't sit here and write that one method is better than the other. I incorporate both ways when I find time to do music in-between posting responses in these threads

FHL wrote:
Can someone tell me about the SOUND of the 2500

I know the features, i can read them everywhere, but i cant see something about the sound of the machine: one of the things why people still got there 60 and 3000....

is the sound like the 4000 or more like the 2000? What kind of sound engine does it got

This topic will always be subjective.

I find that the 2500 faithfully captures what ever you record into it. I was one of the people hanging onto my MPC 3000..mainly because it had MIDI features/functions that are not available on the XL/2000. But the 2500 changed all of this for me. I will most likely pick up another MPC 3000 though..just because..its the daddy of MPCs that I want to have as a collectors item...

The 2500 is based on the same sound engine as the 1000. The 2500 mpc converters sound cleaner than the others. You can alter the sound with the master eq and compression effects to add more highs, mids and lows to the 2500's sound. Every mpc has it's own sound. The better the converters the brighter, truer or cleaner the sound, the older the converters the darker, grimier the sound. Most converters differ in high, mid and low range sound. A percentage of mpc users prefer a darker, grimier sound of their samples. This is also a debate with recording engineers of tape vs DAW recordings or CD/DVD vs vinyl.

Red_Dragon wrote:
This is also a debate with recording engineers of tape vs DAW recordings or CD/DVD vs vinyl.

True...but I have to add that more/most engineers are moving/moved away from tape. High definition DAWs w/ high end AD/DA converters are the #1 choice today. They are said to be able to faithfully capture sonics/audio more than ever before.

Yes, there is a percentage of MPC users that prefer the 'grimey' sound. But don't think any MPC will automatically give you this sound. Getting a specific sound is based on your recording techniques. Even an MPC 60 can/will help you create a polished/commercial sounding track. And speaking of 'grimey' (hate it or luv it)..how often do you hear 'grimey' music on the radio/TV? Yes, I know a portion of the members here will give the middle finger to commercial music...but even the most revered vintage MPC/SP users crafted polished commercial hits using the older MPCs.

Red_Dragon wrote:
The 2500 is based on the same sound engine as the 1000.

I am glad that the 2500s sound engine is among the very few things that is based on the 1000

I like the sound of the 2500.. I switched form the 4000 to the 2500 with no regret. The 2500 has a different flavor.. Some people will debate this, but that is my opinion. I haven't noticed any major sound difference to call the 2500 junk. People debated the 4000 when it first can out. I noticed every new mpc released, has a debate.

What do you mean by different flavor?

jahrome wrote:What do you mean by different flavor?

Sound!

Meaning the sound of the converters. In my comparison of the 2000XL, 4000 and the 2500.

I figured that much...

But what exactly are you saying?

The over all sound!

2000xl overal sound is too weak (thin) to make complete songs with it imo.
4000 sounds way better compared to the 2000

red dragon; of coarse the sound is one of the most important things when you compare mpc's. I just bought a asr10 te compensate the thin 2000xl sound, but overall its still a very good machine.

I like to make music with a all in one tool like the mpc. Yeah i can EQ every sound in my computer or in expensive outboard gear but i dont like working that way.

FHL wrote:

2000xl overal sound is too weak (thin) to make complete songs with it imo.
4000 sounds way better compared to the 2000

red dragon; of coarse the sound is one of the most important things when you compare mpc's. I just bought a asr10 te compensate the thin 2000xl sound, but overall its still a very good machine.

I like to make music with a all in one tool like the mpc. Yeah i can EQ every sound in my computer or in expensive outboard gear but i dont like working that way.

XL too weak huh? Its a MIDI sequencer that samples. Using it by itself when it does much more is silly (IMHO). But there are plenty of producers that use XLs even when their 'weak' sound Producers that actually do more then make a few 4 bar loops in ther bedrooms.

Red_Dragon wrote:
The over all sound!

What about the over all sound?

jahrome wrote:

Red_Dragon wrote:
The over all sound!

What about the over all sound?

The fact that it sounds cleaner.. compared to the previous mpc models.

The 2000xl sound like the 2500 for me.
And I don't have the "thin" sound like you told, but maybe I don't use the same technique to sample than you.
It's all about record technique.

2500 looks so much like the 1k, I would think it has the 1000 sound engine in there. Which to me is a little more "hyped" and "punchy" compared to the 2000xl that my boy has (not a direct comparison) and a lot more punchy, slightly brighter than the E-mu e4 that I have also. All in all a good sounding sampler to my ears, it seems to focus the sound a little....which is usually a good thing.

I think the most important thing to keep in mind, is that the best MPC for you depends on what your outboard gear situation is. Are you a one-box type of producer? Then go for the 2500. Do you use hardware processing? Maybe you would prefer the 3000. These are probably the two best MPC's, at least, if you like Dre and Hi-Tek. I think any MPC sounds good, if you have don't have one, you probably should get one. A soft-sampler takes much longer but sounds just as good with the right converters. The integration of sampler and sequencer is what gives the MPC series the edge over PC's, that why someone would process sounds outboard, then resample into the MP.