What do you think about the sound of the 2500?

jahrome wrote:I thought you'd never ask. I will work on it.

Cool mang. Hook it up as soon as you can. Hit me with a PM if you want me to host the files.

D

Thanks boomspot:

http://www.boomspot.com/2500vs3000/Test1.wav
http://www.boomspot.com/2500vs3000/Test2.wav

i don't hear a noticeable difference in sound quality between those two.

can you just sample a loop straight from a turntable into both the 2500 and the 3000 and see how each sounds? i'm assuming those samples you used were processed in the same place and just loaded into each machine.

Mike Feedback, good observation......

What you're hearing is the DA (digital to analog) coverters of both MPCs. They are both playing digital copies of the same sample recorded into the digital inputs.

After this test, I was going show the difference in the AD (analog to digital) converters. Where the data will tilt in the 3000s favor. The MPC 3000 has a preamp that provides an adjustable gain (low, mid, high) to the input signal, and the 2500 doesn't.

the truth of the matter is, to everyone, its gonna sound different. one machine is gonna sound better to this person, another machine is gonna sound better to the other. i dont think there is "a better sounding machine". they all rock and knock. and if u really wanna get down to the nitty gritty... it wont even matter how it sounded out of ur MPC, once it goes in for mastering, its gonna sound completely different.

etinetalmai, your statement is cool, but.....I am more interested in your ears for this test. They way something sounds is vital to music. And it really does matter how your music sounds when recorded. Poorly recorded/mixed music will still sound like crap when mastered. I am not saying that any MPC sounds like crap. But for this debate, what do you think about the sound of these two MPCs?

DJ-T wrote:

Duuuuuuuuuude!!!!
This is the first piece of gear I ever bought! HAHAHA... I bought a Roland D5 and a used MC500 that was in a studio fire!!!

Sick memories this just brought back. I could program on this blindfolded...lol

I was confused at first when I heard what this machine could do.Nice tho

jahrome wrote:etinetalmai, your statement is cool, but.....I am more interested in your ears for this test. They way something sounds is vital to music. And it really does matter how your music sounds when recorded. Poorly recorded/mixed music will still sound like **** when mastered. I am not saying that any MPC sounds like ****. But for this debate, what do you think about the sound of these two MPCs?

honestly, i dont hear a noticeable difference. true to ur point on poor recording quality, that wasnt in my mind set at all, of course i wasn't talking about that, Sh*t is gonna sound like Sh*t, cant fix that. i was simply stating that what someone thinks sounds "Great" coming out of their MPC, or that "Pooow! Warm Sound" more than likely wont even be there or be the same after mastering, speaking technically of course. my point was simply that nobody hears the same thing. so to you it may sound like Sh*t but to me it sounds freaking AWESOME! hahah, but personally... they really dont sound differently. like i said before, they all rock and knock. it all depends on the users ear on choosing which one sounds "better".

Most of you were shocked when 9th wonder revealed he used fruity loops.. 99.9% of us just knew it was an MPC in some kind of way, and we were all wrong!

I find that very hard to believe. Anyone can tell by those off beat cut off sample chops and the fact that he used the SAME EXACT kick and snare for the whole ENTIRE first album HAS to give it away..matter fact thats what I did when my friend told me to cop "the listening" album cuz "it would take me back to the days when Pete Rock and CL Smooth was on the radio and native tongue was out majorly".. I copped that album quick.. heard it, stopped it.. and GAVE IT AWAY lol. Whoever was suprized I can't see how. (plus in the back of the album he was sample diggin' through CDs! LOL)