Question about 4000 Vs 2500

No offence taken. I get your passion. If some joker wrote they thought the Alesis Micron was better than the A6, I'd be the same way.

You've got good ears, the A6 has great strings. You can't get that same sounds out of these two synths. TI lacks warmth. But it's thick and Phasy in good way, but not like the A6.

In my experience, I've had less problems with the A6. It's always been solid for me. TI had lots of bugs, but now it's mostly fixed. So at this point, both the synths are pretty solid. To my ears, the A6 beats the TI for Strings and Pads. TI does a great job, but Analogue rawness is nicer to me for those types of patches. The TI really shines for techno/dance/trance stuff and the A6 is altogether more versatile and fits nicely in mixes, especially the pads and strings.

To be honest you can't go wrong with either, but for STRINGS, the A6 might be a better choice, though you'll need to get the user forum and download a bunch of patches and get the memory expansion card. The presets aren't that great, it's hard to program at first and the memory without the expansion is weak. You can get a thick phasy sound from the Virus for sure, but the A6 just sounds a lot warmer and organic. If you're REALLY serious about buying one or the other soon, I can record a couple of quick of MP3s to demo string patches on both instruments. I wont tell you which is which until after you heard them. That would be the ultimate test.

barzin wrote:No offence taken. I get your passion. If some joker wrote they thought the Alesis Micron was better than the A6, I'd be the same way.

You've got good ears, the A6 has great strings. You can't get that same sounds out of these two synths. TI lacks warmth. But it's thick and Phasy in good way, but not like the A6.

In my experience, I've had less problems with the A6. It's always been solid for me. TI had lots of bugs, but now it's mostly fixed. So at this point, both the synths are pretty solid. To my ears, the A6 beats the TI for Strings and Pads. TI does a great job, but Analogue rawness is nicer to me for those types of patches. The TI really shines for techno/dance/trance stuff and the A6 is altogether more versatile and fits nicely in mixes, especially the pads and strings.

To be honest you can't go wrong with either, but for STRINGS, the A6 might be a better choice, though you'll need to get the user forum and download a bunch of patches and get the memory expansion card. The presets aren't that great, it's hard to program at first and the memory without the expansion is weak. You can get a thick phasy sound from the Virus for sure, but the A6 just sounds a lot warmer and organic. If you're REALLY serious about buying one or the other soon, I can record a couple of quick of MP3s to demo string patches on both instruments. I wont tell you which is which until after you heard them. That would be the ultimate test.

That would be great. I wouldnt mind a blind test between those two synths.
If you can do that, that would be help.

I know what you mean about the versatality of the A6 over the Ti. I kind of got that impression from the online demos.

The TI's distortion isnt great, and it sounds too thin. The A6 has a thicker sound as well as a nice character that is difficult to describe.

This conversation is ok but if you read the topic you can see "mpc 4000 vs 2500".... If you start another topic it would be easier for other users to find this questions....
Thanks anyway

granma wrote:This conversation is ok but if you read the topic you can see "mpc 4000 vs 2500".... If you start another topic it would be easier for other users to find this questions....
Thanks anyway

I think its pretty clear that this topic 'MPC 4000 Vs 2500' is a waist of time, hence the poor replies.

The 4000 and 2500 are not comparable, and hoping that the 2500 will come out on top from a few replies from other members aint gonna help you much either. They are very different machines...Trust!!!

If you want to know the differences, look at the MPC comparison chart on the Akaipro website. The differences are clearly stated.

Dont expect anyone to tell you which mpc is better, only you and your budget can decide that.

again, the MPC Comparison chart is your best friend.

Yeah, I´ve read it a lot of times but a lot of aspects are not refected there
Cheers

I have come to realise after reading thru a bunch of topics about the 4000/2500/1000 debate that almost every poster on this website frankly just does not know what they are talking about.

You guys answer vaguely, because you really dont know - It seems to me that 95% of people dont understand the 4000.. and the ones that think they do, cant even explain its advantages in understandable english.

The only advatages I see from the 4000 is useless specs like the sample rate, cd burner, ram ect.

The truth is, most people dont learn these things inside and out. They just bang out beats and get shit to work for them and find their little unique ways of doing things within whichever MPC they have. Not many posters here (if any) own multiple versions of the MPC and truely understand them inside and out.

elitethatsme wrote:IThe only advatages I see from the 4000 is useless specs like the sample rate, cd burner, ram ect.

I dont know the Q-link Seq and keygroup on the 4k set it apart enough to me

elitethatsme wrote:I have come to realise after reading thru a bunch of topics about the 4000/2500/1000 debate that almost every poster on this website frankly just does not know what they are talking about. And you qualify for conclusions like this?

You guys answer vaguely, because you really dont know Erm...why would you say that. I'm a professional and treat it that way - Do not expect a sales act on here.

- It seems to me that 95% of people dont understand the 4000.. and the ones that think they do, cant even explain its advantages in understandable english. Again, it's not my job to.

The only advatages I see from the 4000 is useless specs like the sample rate, cd burner, ram ect. And that is where you're wrong - Big Time.

The truth is, most people dont learn these things inside and out. They just bang out beats and get **** to work for them and find their little unique ways of doing things within whichever MPC they have. Not many posters here (if any) own multiple versions of the MPC and truely understand them inside and out.

Three words:

Read The Specs

the first BIG diefference is:

the 4k is the ONLY mpc that has a FULL FEATURED SAMPLER
not just a drum\loop oriented sampler.

that says it all.

i bought it for this reason and for the max capacity too.and the 960 ppq too.

it is a different level.

honestly, i dont get what that means, how is a full fledged sampler and the others jus drum?

The 2500 (and the mpc 60, 60mk2, 3000, 3000le, 2000, 2000xl, 1000) are all 'phrase' samplers. Ideal for drum shots.

The MPC 4000 has a full sampler engine, based on the 24 Bit / 96Khz Z-series engine that Akai designed for computer integration and ease of use.

The 4000 can play mutli instruments like Piano's, synths, etc.

The 4000 is better than the 2500 on the following:

Full 24 bit Sampler - Instruments, etc
Higher grade AD-DA's - fuller and crisp sounding (not plastic)
960 PPQN resolution - Superb for Off Quantize drums and human feel
More dedicated buttons - continuous Note repeat
Nice big white LCD - clear to the eye
Prefessional XLR outputs, as well as a good Turntable preamp.
More Q-Links
USB for flashpen drives - Sweet
Up to 512 MB ram for huge sample time
Aksys software Integration - Sweet, build kits and import and export

Not to forget the CD RW and Hardrive option - which you can install on the 1000 and 2500, but the 4k had it too (for a 5 year old product, not bad).


The 4000 Rocks

Groove66 wrote:The 2500 (and the mpc 60, 60mk2, 3000, 3000le, 2000, 2000xl, 1000) are all 'phrase' samplers. Ideal for drum shots.

The MPC 4000 has a full sampler engine, based on the 24 Bit / 96Khz Z-series engine that Akai designed for computer integration and ease of use.

The 4000 can play mutli instruments like Piano's, synths, etc.

The 4000 is better than the 2500 on the following:

Full 24 bit Sampler - Instruments, etc
Higher grade AD-DA's - fuller and crisp sounding (not plastic)
960 PPQN resolution - Superb for Off Quantize drums and human feel
More dedicated buttons - continuous Note repeat
Nice big white LCD - clear to the eye
Prefessional XLR outputs, as well as a good Turntable preamp.
More Q-Links
USB for flashpen drives - Sweet
Up to 512 MB ram for huge sample time
Aksys software Integration - Sweet, build kits and import and export

Not to forget the CD RW and Hardrive option - which you can install on the 1000 and 2500, but the 4k had it too (for a 5 year old product, not bad).


The 4000 Rocks

Now that was a good post, finally. Thank you.

Yes the 4k is defenitely worthy. The only reason folks are diss'n it is because one...they can't afford it, two...there's very few of the originals, & three...not knowing how to properly operate it. This workstation was made for the STUDIO!

dabmeister wrote:Yes the 4k is defenitely worthy. The only reason folks are diss'n it is because one...they can't afford it, two...there's very few of the originals, & three...not knowing how to properly operate it. This workstation was made for the STUDIO!

No difference between the White 4K and Blue 4K. I have owned both, infact my old white version was a buggy unit that had channel panning issues when playing back complex sequences.

My 4000 BL (2004 model, not Plus) is made in China as was the white versions. Both function the same and the sound and feel is exact.

i have also owned a 4000 Plus (2005), no difference.

dabmeister wrote:Yes the 4k is defenitely worthy. The only reason folks are diss'n it is because one...they can't afford it, two...there's very few of the originals, & three...not knowing how to properly operate it. This workstation was made for the STUDIO!

yes but trust me it is PERFECT also for a live p.a. if u dont like using a laptop for it and u cant stand the cheesy sequencers of the grooveboxes