MPC2000XL vs MPC1000

which one should i get???

both

(it depends what are your needs)

well....what are the differences (compare and contrast)???

please help a brotha out.

thanx,
-chris

im stuck as you are.
i've talked to a few locals, who have produced a few albums alsread. the are recomending the 2000XL, but when they gave me their opinions they also said thier knowledge and experience on a 1000 was very limited. if you want to spend an extra grand for time stretch(CAN. dollers) then buy the XL, otherwise a 1000 can do basicly what you need. apparently it's suppsesed to have some sort of upgrade allowing it to have time-stretch. if i see this sometime withing the next 6 months, i'll defintly take the 1000. also the 1000 has mor filters on it. they mean nothing to me, as i have no idea what filters are. im new to this whol music pro-duction scene. im only here thought because i wanna make music.

one-up wrote:apparently it's suppsesed to have some sort of upgrade allowing it to have time-stretch

This is just something that a number of users have said they would like to see...there is nothing to indicate that it is a planned upgrade.

The 1000 can do almost everything the 2000xl can do, as well as a few things that the 2000xl cannot. The Tutor has a feature comparison here. Bear in mind that some of the features that the 1000 does not have are unlikely to limit you that much (sequencer capacity for example) or only really apply to users thinking about selling an older MPC to get the 1000 (all program parameters not transferring, no SCSI).

If you don't have access to a computer that will handle some simple WAV editing tasks, I would recommend the 2000xl. If you do have a computer, or you are just starting to buy gear I would recommend the 1000.

Here's the deal on the XL's features which are missing from the 1000:

The timestretch takes forever and is inferior to (cheaper) software timestretch algorithms anyway. My s5K rackmount stretches much faster. There is no upgrade for timestretch on the 1000, I have no idea where you heard this.

Reverse was something I did play with quite often when sampling from vinyl, but it can easily be done on a computer and the CF card and USB connection make this a fairly quick process.

The filters on the 1000 are badass. It has 2 Lo, Hi or Band-pass filters, whereas older MPCs only had a single lopass. You can also create a fatter filter by using the two "linked". Filters essentially completely wipe out sections of a sound. An EQ could raise or lower certain frequency ranges, but a filter eliminates them completely.

The resample I have yet to determine if I really like, because it apparently lowers the volume of the resampled sample, but this may be something I'm not doing properly. Haven't had enough time with the machine to tell for sure.

I wish it had per-track Velocity % adjustment for post-sequencing tweaking of hit velocity throughout the track. As of right now, the only ways to modify the volume of hits in a sequence are to re-record it, adjust it in the mixer or in step mode.

I love that I can use a different program for every track, this is an impossibly cool feature. I'm coming from a 2k background, not XL. 2k had only one program in memory at a time, the XL allowed 4 "drum programs" but the 1k will allow up to 64 if I remember correctly.

The size of the 2k and XL make them seem more "solid" and they certainly are more easily approachable than the clutter of the 1k. But now that I've gotten used to it, I actually prefer changing modes and entering data using the pads and nothing else, it's less distracting than using a numpad and whatever else.

The XL's zone slicing feature would've been cool for the 1k, but it never had hit-detection anyway, so it's not all that great for chopping breaks quickly in the first place. Use Recycle, you'll thank yourself later.

The onboard flash memory and CompactFlash on the 1k is an improvement over any earlier MPC and the effects, layered pads, filters, sampling while playing, and ease of editing make it a clear winner for my particular style of working. It sits easier in my setup, that's for sure!!

-tank.

In my personal opinion and this is from someone who used to own a 2000xl with all the bells and whistles -

I prefer the 1000 over the 2000xl - basically for the simple fact it's easier to interface between my computer and the MPC1000.

The only features I'm missing are the velocity functions...on the xl you can adjust the overall velocity of the track from the main screen and you can go into seq edit and adjust the velocity.

Other than that and a couple of CF issues I prefer the size, features and functions of the 1000 way more than the 2000xl

well dont quote me on what i said in my above post. like i said im new to this whole scene.

im hearing though that chances are the sample you have on your computer were original .mp3, thats if your downloading songs and stuff. if you take a song that you downloaded it as .mp3 from, then format it into .wav, the quality wouldn't be as good. unless you record to your compputer certain songs and stuff, then you'll need a decent soundcard. basicly what im trying to say, from what i hear the quality of samples will be lower once they go through the computer.

dont quote me on this, this is from what i've heard. and my question is:

is this even true? and if it does go through the computer how much does the quality deteriate?

MP3's suck.

Find the sample you want on wax or on a CD and sample it that way. Once a WAV has been converted to MP3, the sound quality is lost forever. Converting it back will only increase the size (in MB) of the file while the sound quality will remain MP3.

Dig deep in yon rekkid store and bring forth the treasures held within!

one-up wrote:from what i hear the quality of samples will be lower once they go through the computer.

That depends on what you are using as the source for the sample. WAVs are just digital files. When you move or copy a digital file you create an exact copy, so WAVs will not deteriorate as you edit, manipulate and move them around on a computer.

If you are using a WAV that was created from an mp3, the sound quality will depend on the bitrate the mp3 was encoded at. A higher bitrate means better quality, but no matter how high the bitrate of an mp3, the sound quality will always be lower than if a WAV were used as the source for the sample.

If you rip a CD track to your computer as a WAV, the resulting sample will be as high quality as you can get from a CD.

If you record from vinyl to a WAV file on your computer, the sound quality will depend on the sound card / audio interface you use (not to mention the condition of the vinyl, the needle on the turntable and the amp or preamp you put it through).

@ thynctank

Great post!
That's the kind of detailed s**t we need to be hearing when comparing these Mpc's.
You took the time to consider how each machines features work best for your way of working and gave us all a very informative description.
Thynctank.......Yes definitley, Nice Post!!

its newer, smaller, has a nice feel, etc, etc...

the list goes on...

nah...seriously...the 1000 is the way to go over the 2000xl.

it will suite a DAW setup much much better with USB and all.

the 1000's sequencer is tight...period.

i agree, this is a actual good post. we should continue extending on it in better depth.

anyways, the reason i brought up MP3 -> WAV transfer is because if i personally owned an MPC 1000, i would try to download most of my samples, therefore eliminating extra costs for vinyl, and extra equipment. turntables, pre-amps, tape deck etc. i could replace all that with my computer and download what i would have sampled.

at first i wanted to like the 1000, i thought haveing it hooked up to a computer would be aweome for the reason easy sample hunting. then i realized the quality loss. my next questions is:

is there a PHONO input for the mpc 1000? i've read on a site that it has a phone input, it says exactly "Two 1/4 Phono Inputs (-10dB Line Level) "

you can browse that at:
http://www.kellyindustries.com/keyboards/akai_mpc1000.html

now if i could just plug it in directly, then im thinking i can still use a computer to store/record on to. i still see a benefit in that. what do you guys think? but aparently you can hook the zkXL to a computer to. though MIDI. is that true?

(im not trying to steal this post)

No phono preamp on it. You need to hook your deck to a mixer or a phono preamp first.

I guess I never thought of music as something you would NEED to buy. I can't help but buy it.

To each his own but I get no satisfaction from downloading music. I love the feeling of dropping the needle on a dusty, old record and finding that long, lost jam.

It's not even all that much money really. Just hit garage sales and buy up whataver they have for next to nothing. Friends and relatives are good too. Let everyone know that you like records and folks will give you their old wax just so they don't have to throw it out. You'll end up with a bunch of crappy records but I guarantee you there are samples all over those records, even if it's just drum hits or crazy noises to mess with.

A turntable is a very worthwhile investment. Everyone should have at least two!

To cover these topics is beyond the original scope of the post, but it's all good.

MP3s are the shit. Their quality is not wav, no doubt. But I can stuff a CD full of 16 albums of music and play it in my car without appreciable difference. I mean, we're talking about casual listening in the end anyway. How many people on this forum own Super Audio CDs or DVD Audio-players? How many people who are not major producers and/or rich pricks (like a certain relative of mine) own a home stereo system that costs more than a couple grand?

Anyhow, what I'm saying is, without further ranting, if it's a good mp3, it'll make a decent wav. It won't sound as good as an original wav recording of the same sound, but it's not like you paid for the sound or even sampled it yourself in your particular situation. Besides, if you're making music like most of the cats on here, you want "dirty and grimy". You think hi-fi is the way to go?? People on here go to great lengths to dirty up their sounds in the first place. ("I sample first into an SP-1200" or "I always resample my drums to 8-bit" or whatever)

Another thing you may be missing. There are thousands of freely available wav files out there with somewhat workable drums and other instruments which you can tweak to high heaven and back down to earth in whatever software you choose, or you can bake up your own samples numerous ways. You've already said you use a computer, why not put it to use? I hear you on wanting to sample bits of songs and all, but listen to the longer song samples on the radio, and you'll hear purposely scratch, lo-fi treatment of these snippets. MP3 is fine for this sort of thing.

Don't blame the MPC for quality loss, haha. Blame the folks out there ripping [illegal] songs for your ass. I'm no saint when it comes to downloads either, just saying.

There is no phono in. You'll need a mixer or a phono preamp to sample from vinyl, unless your turntable has direct line outs.

The inputs might have been described as PHONE inputs, or someone might have mislabeled them. They are line level, that part's correct.

You can connect the MPC1k or the 2kXL, or any other MIDI capable device, to a computer with MIDI cables. Doesn't matter what machine it is. I program softsynths with my 1k all the time.

-tank.