MPC2500 or MPC4000?

dabmeister wrote:

BASICZ wrote:if you can get you an mv-8000 all the power of the mpc 4000 with a couple extra features,and cheaper($1400 usd)

Not quite, but close. I give all props to the MV but it's still a 16 bit, 44.1khz machine.

Once again.....

Unless you're tracking into a Pro-Tools rig, and I'm talking about a REAL PRO-Tools rig like a HD system NOT a M-Box or DIgi001 or 002 that ain't the real Pro Tools and its comes no where near it. Anyway, unless you're tracking into a real HD system with like Apogee converters or some other type of high end converters with a bad azz clocking system then mixing onto a nice analog console , ala Amek or Neve or SSL , then no 24 bit really is not gonna really make a diffrence to yours or anybody elses ear. Everything gets dithered back to down to 16bit before it goes to CD anyway and most guys that are doing hip-hop want their drums dirty & gritty so why the hell even care about 24 bit then? hahaha ...naw man no real differnce IMHO especially just for sampling.

The real bottom line is that a crappy song tracked in 24 bit and dithered back to 16 bit won't sound better than a good song recorded/mixed/mastered at 16 bit. If the song is hot, the bits don't matter in the end!

Here's a quote from an article off of tweakheadz about 16 bit vs. 24 bit...

So should you record at a high sample rate? Its going to depend on who you ask. Some people say "It's all going to end up as 44.1 any way" when the cd is burned. Others will tell you that when an audio interface processes and mixes sounds at 96 kHz the result is better and remains better even after the final conversion to 44.1. And just about every other position is taken too. Some say 16/44.1 is good enough for CD its good enough for me. Others say do 24/44.1 because it's not that much more space and it increases the signal to noise ratio. There is one argument that says 24/88.2 is superior to 24/96 because it is an even number conversion going back to 44.1.

So what's that? You want to hear what _I_ think. Ok, this is the gospel according to Tweak! Use 24 bit for every recording if you have this feature. I was a believer for the past decade that 16 bit was the way to go and I have absolutely changed my mind. No matter of what you are recording this is true. If you have a nice mic, a very good preamp and a clean audio system and are recording highly dynamic instruments such as acoustic guitars, classical orchestras, acapella vocals, the difference will be there. Quiet passages will be less likely struggling to stay above the noise floor on your system. One can record with no compression. You can record at lower levels, with more headroom. This ensures that the occasional peak is not truncated at the top and it will give converters some room the breathe. Because you are not pushing the limits of your bandwidth, your instruments will sound clearer, and the vocals may sound "cleaner", the song will mix better and there will be less noise.

Personally, I made the switch from 16 to 24 bit when I upgraded my soundcards and don't regret it one bit! I know it's much better from a sonic standpoint, so I take advantage of it. And once again, I'm one of those folks that do mostly r&b, jazz, a little gospel and maybe a little hip-hop here and there (I'm variable) but my main goal is to capture as clean of a signal as possible. I could'nt do this with my 16 bit system. Plus I'm one of those that hear a difference between the two. And there's a reason companies upgraded to 24 bit, not for nolvety reasons I might say, but to allow the user the option of getting a better recording quality. 14k, I noticed you mentioned the only way to take advantage of 24 bit recording is through utilizing highend gear. Highend gear is good if you can afford it, but it's not the only way to achieve a sonically viable recording. And you katz keep selling this stuff about there's no difference in recording at this bit rate because it gets dithered back to 16 bit anyway. Dithering is the act of adding noise (which is inaudible anyway) so it can increase the sound quality. I track all my stuff at 24 bit, 44.1 khz and do notice a difference when I record the same material @ 16 bit, 44.1khz. If I didnt know any better, this whole scenario about bit/sample rates would mean nothing to me and I would still be recording with my old 20 bit (really 16 bit) Layla soundcards. Also when I mix from my DAW, it goes straight to the external CD recorder via digital only, no analog. So those of you that don't know any better, do some research or do as I did for the past decade and a half...subscribe to recording, keyboard, eq, home recording, electronic musician, mix and etc. Reading article after article & practicing what I've read, helped me clarify a lot of stuff so I would'nt go around believing a lot of hear-say and what not. 16 bit only recordings had their day, and as time moved on, technological advances in audio production got better as well. I have no other choice but to agree with you 14k about the final mix being put to 16 bit, but the process preceeding that varies from user to user or studio to studio. Personally, I'm not in the business of being a salesman, I'm in the business of being a musician and engineer.

14k wrote:
unless you're tracking into a real HD system with like Apogee converters or some other type of high end converters with a bad azz clocking system then mixing onto a nice analog console , ala Amek or Neve or SSL , then no 24 bit really is not gonna really make a diffrence to yours or anybody elses ear.

Not true. Even though a PT HD system is industry standard, it's not the only means of getting high quality recordings. The same aftermkt manufacturer as well a few others, sell different products & configs for other DAW systems too. Couple that w/ a few of the WAVES SSL 4000 plugs and I don't see why I can't get just as close of a sound (providing a few other factors such as outboard pre's & etc.). But back to the specs, there's a reason Akai put higher bit & sampling rates on the 4k...it was designed as a studio workstation and to be compatible within that enviroment. With the exception of the 2500, the other Akai units are geared towards, but not limited to, individual use and/or preferences.

As you know I posted the same quote a week or so ago! It's not in my own words, but a quote between 2 people! The reason for the re-post again was to spark conversation on this topic! I like it when people respond on an in-depth level which is what I wanted to read in other responses! I'll never argue over the topic, because at the end of the day, people are going to use what they want or can afford!

It does make me wonder why people (some people) scream 24bit, but over-process their tracks to the point that the tracks are probably not even in the 16bit range! That's like having HD wide screen TV and only watching old Black/White DVD movies! Well not really, but you know where I'm going!

Dawg, this is a debate that has gone on ever since the emergence of 24 bit technology. Keep in mind we've been involved with this technology for at lease a decade or so now, but it still is'nt excepted by everybody. I tip my hat off to you for being real and not too many folks get that from me, or at least my acknowledgment of it. This is like me doing a debate between my kurzweil & 4k, both are samplers but even though the kurz is a 16 bit machine, I think its VAST system technology is still up to par compared to the 4k & a lot of the other keyboards/mods out today. But like you, I love these debates too, because sometimes we learn things we thought we already knew.

dabmeister wrote:Dawg, this is a debate that has gone on ever since the emergence of 24 bit technology.

You are right and this is where all the trouble comes from.
People based entirely too much on old info.
In the current state of gear and technology a lot of the discussion in no longer relevent.
We have excelled in the quality of converters as well as dither schemes to a point where going back to 16-bit is far from detrimental.
With plug-ins that are properly designed (not talking free VST's) you definitely get more from a higher bit rate and sample rate.
The problem then comes from all things being created equal to allow you to reap the full return meaning good a2d and d2a, quality dithering, a good monitoring enviroinment and good mix skills.
This bit wars argument is similaer to the point Dan Lavry made about a device should sound better when using it's own clock instead of an external clock.
People argued with him because they didn't hear his entire statement they only based it on what floats around about improving things with an external clock.
His point was if the internal clock is properly designed it will always perform better than an external clock.
So he was trying to point out that external clocks are for creating a common clocking system when associating multiple digital devices not improving sound quality.
If it improved your sound quality then you are dealing with a poorly designed converter.
Total contradiction to what people typically say, but hard to argue with since he designs the Lavry products.
So with the 24 vs 16 you have to understand if your entire setup is up for the game you get true benenfits and they reduce more and more depending on the components you use and your methods.
But on no level can you make a blanket statement like 24 is a waste since you have to dither down to 16, it's just not that cut and dry.

14k wrote: [
Unless you're tracking into a Pro-Tools rig, and I'm talking about a REAL PRO-Tools rig like a HD system NOT a M-Box or DIgi001 or 002 that ain't the real Pro Tools and its comes no where near it. Anyway, unless you're tracking into a real HD system with like Apogee converters or some other type of high end converters with a bad azz clocking system then mixing onto a nice analog console , ala Amek or Neve or SSL , then no 24 bit really is not gonna really make a diffrence to yours or anybody elses ear.

Far from true.
There are a major percentage of LE systems out there that with the $$$ saved being put to proper use.
Meaning running both an upgraded frontend and outboard stems.
You just can do so much more with your money if you take an LE system and build it up with outboard pres, comps, converters etc.
This is the reason why Digidesign will not add SMUX to the LE line it allows them to box you in at 44/48 if you want to multitrack with external converters.
Also why they added Control24 support to LE when they realized people were stretching them to a higher level.
If you can deal with 2 tracking then you can do the 88/96 but it will still effect your stems for mixdown.
Far too many HD systems lose ground because the system eats up too much $$$$ and they have too get back to a point of adding better converters and such.
I would rather work on LE w/ a Rosetta 800 and some outboard gear than HD with the 96i or 192 and something like the PRE, unless I was tracking a band.
There's a lot more sh*t being done on the LE systems than people realize.
If you can't hear the difference between 16 and 24 there is a simple way to see it.
Track a hot signal to the same DAW at 16 and at 24 and notice the 16 handi\ling of the headroom compared to the 24.
One of the biggest things 24 did for DAW's was made using compression when tracking optional instead of mandatory.
**Good source >> good signal path >> good plugs >> proper mix skills >> quality dither to 16** will still retain benefits.

what happened to/about the 4000 vs 2500?

the mv ppl made their pitch

the mv ppl made their pitch

haha, it's funny how so many of you get bent out of shape when it comes to Roland.

If someone has and loves their MV, why wouldn't they speak up in a thread like this and offer their insight?? There was some good info presented in this thread, you would think everyone would be open to as much good info as possible, but I guess you Akai fanboys just get your panties in too big a twist to let the info sink in, when you think your mpc's are being threatened...

I, like most MV users, started on mpc's. So, in my opinion, we are great resources for good insight on these products. We've been in both worlds, and know how the machines work, and the pro's and con's of each. I still like mpc's, but I just think the MV is a better machine at a better price No need to get offended by that bro, they're just machines.

As far as a sales "pitch" as you put it, none of us care what you buy or what you don't buy. We're not getting paid by Roland. I just see so many people that get mpc's just because they're mpc's, and then deal with the problems and shortcomings they have in their mpc's, just because they're mpc's...


oh, and 14K, I just can't agree with the big 16/24 bit argument you posted. 24 bit is better will always be better, and it has nothing to do with whether you're recording into a mbox or a 196 interface... Yes, you will shave off those bits when you dither, but if you read up on dither, you'll see how it works with the decimal places and everything...24 bit is better.

indivisibleProductions wrote:
If someone has and loves their MV, why wouldn't they speak up in a thread like this and offer their insight??

Hmmmm, could it be that it was a post in an Akai Forum about 2 Akai machines?
It' more like MV Fanboys trying to mandate their choice.
There are already threads about MV vs MPC xxxx, so it just a typical thread hi-jack.
I have a 2500 fully loaded w/JJ v5 and have a 4k Plus coming this week.
The biggest thing for me is I want to retain and expand the MPC workflow at the same time increase PPQ and sample rate.

I like that post ntalec. If he wants to know about MV's he can go to Nation. He asked about two MPCs on the MPC forum. I like the MV. I had one along with an MPC2500 and love them both. But save MVs for MV posts. I learned my lesson. As for 2500 versus 4k its also come up before with lots of posts. I love my 2500 and would only trade it for a 4k. 4k is a monster and is the center piece for boo-koo RnB and hiphop moguls. Jerkins, Bryan Michael Cox, Jus Blaze et al, have the 4k front and center. I just hate the extra cost for 8 outs. If I pay >$2500 for anything, it should have additional outs. But if I had the need and loot, I go for the 4k.

I hear 24 bit provides more headroom and you should record everything at 24 bit and then dither down at the end to 16 bit. That's from several major studio gurus, not my words but theirs.