Time stretch!

Technical questions for the MPC2000xl and the MPC2000
 Reply Share on Facebook
User avatar

By The Maker Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:50 am
Jacpot wrote:
Lampdog wrote:Timestretching small peices on 2kxl is cool, the bigger the file the LONGER the process will take, and I mean it's a LONG time. When I do timestretch I use Sound Forge though, 2kxl is just too slow for some of the samples I process..

See thats the thing Lamp...
When I stretch a long sample it doesnt take a while...
I stretch it in the bpm screen
You know when u open up Time stretch then open bpm and when u change the tempo to whatever it dont take long....
I think I waited 30 seconds Max for a long sample...


Jackpot that's the Beat Match function and yes it's a lot faster than time stretching on the XL.
User avatar

By Lampdog Thu Sep 07, 2006 12:24 pm
BEAT MATCH, damn I forgot all about that. I don't even remember the last time I used that.
User avatar

By trupro Thu Sep 07, 2006 4:47 pm
like Jac said, the more I use this, the more I like it. I agree, drums and stuff where you need the impact of transient can get compromised, but you can make it pop again with compression. I been using the timestretch along with mild re-sampling, to make stuff a little grittier, too.
User avatar

By Jacpot Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:59 pm
The Maker wrote:
Jacpot wrote:
Lampdog wrote:Timestretching small peices on 2kxl is cool, the bigger the file the LONGER the process will take, and I mean it's a LONG time. When I do timestretch I use Sound Forge though, 2kxl is just too slow for some of the samples I process..

See thats the thing Lamp...
When I stretch a long sample it doesnt take a while...
I stretch it in the bpm screen
You know when u open up Time stretch then open bpm and when u change the tempo to whatever it dont take long....
I think I waited 30 seconds Max for a long sample...


Jackpot that's the Beat Match function and yes it's a lot faster than time stretching on the XL.


So whats the difference between timestretch and beat match??
They both speed and slow the sample without affecting the tune.

Beat match is just quicker I guess :?:

By B-DOUBLE Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:17 am
I sure I dont have as much eperience as most or al of you,but from what I see there is no differecne in the function .Its just a differnt way to tell the mpc how to timestretch.One uses percntage the other is using tempo. I use it ever since i had my mpc and read alot. I believe it is the same thing and if you put the sample on A or B instead of C the highest quality it wont take as long as everyone says it does.
User avatar

By Lampdog Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:47 am
B-DOUBLE wrote:Its just a differnt way to tell the mpc how to timestretch.One uses percntage the other is using tempo.
User avatar

By Science Sat Sep 09, 2006 5:41 am
Lampdog wrote:Pitchshift would change up/down the pitch/tune of the sample. If the sample is a piano hit it and you pitchshift then the tune would go up/down right, right. If you timestretch that piano hit the tune would stay the same and the note would get shorter/longer in length, right? right. Not a big deal to most cause it's a one shot/one hit.

If you use a loop, riff, drum break then you don't want the tune (in this case since it's a loop we can substitute tune for bpm of the sample) going up and down cause then it won't fit inside your sequence, your loop will playback slow or fast, not what you want if you are adamant a certain tempo you want. So you wanna make it longer/shorter without affecting the tune = timestretch. NOW, it can fit your certain tempo you want.



excellent advice
User avatar

Manual time stretching

By Kon B Sat Sep 09, 2006 6:01 pm
I saw that Pete Rock was talking about how his XL time stretchs. But he said he does it the manual way.

What is the manual way for time stretching?? Is that a trick he came up with??
he mentions it here ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws2aCAhbsc0

Byharlej Sat Sep 09, 2006 7:06 pm
I saw this video some time ago.
I think what he means is:
-Take the loop of the record in a slower tempo (doesn't matter if it's originally slow or if you just make it on the minus scale of your turntable).Let's say that it's a 2 bar loop.
-Than you chop it into 16 zones and you have each piece on each 1 of 16 pads.
-Let's say that your loop was 'originally' at 70 bpm and your track has 85 or 90 bpm for example.
-After assigning the mute options (pad A2 mutes pad A1 and so on...-but it's not necessary,I've checked it),you can now play the sampled loop on your pads at 90 bpm without timestretching and changing the pitch.You can ofcourse rearrange the melody or whatever you feel that sounds good

Am I right ?
User avatar

By Jacpot Sun Sep 10, 2006 4:59 am
harlej wrote:I saw this video some time ago.
I think what he means is:
-Take the loop of the record in a slower tempo (doesn't matter if it's originally slow or if you just make it on the minus scale of your turntable).Let's say that it's a 2 bar loop.
-Than you chop it into 16 zones and you have each piece on each 1 of 16 pads.
-Let's say that your loop was 'originally' at 70 bpm and your track has 85 or 90 bpm for example.
-After assigning the mute options (pad A2 mutes pad A1 and so on...-but it's not necessary,I've checked it),you can now play the sampled loop on your pads at 90 bpm without timestretching and changing the pitch.You can ofcourse rearrange the melody or whatever you feel that sounds good

Am I right ?


Some what true, when you assign your chops you can only speed the tempo by + or - only a couple bpm's because then the samples will stop ttoo short or overlap and sound shytty...
BPM match like I was explaining would work best :!:
User avatar

By Lampdog Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:36 am
Timestretch actually alters the sample.

BPM match does not.

That's why it doesn't take as long.

How, why I think that?

Timestretch makes a new stretched sample.

BPM match doesn't make a new sample
cause it deals with bpm/tempo not actual
data editing.
User avatar

By Lampdog Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:04 am
No, sorry, it's all to the good big dog. Imma do it again tonight and refresh myself on what's what, maybe there is something I missed out on. I'll try and see EXACTLY what's going on and I'll be back on this thread with my findings/miscalculations, lol.
 Reply
Return to MPC2000xl, MPC2000