Beat matching with 2500 (not time stretching or PP'ing)

djray182 wrote:You should compare the two with the same loop. do one using the method in the video i posted above and then do it on the 2000. it cant sound that different its basicly the same thing just written different in the software.

i'm not trying to be a d*ck, but please stop responding. it seems like you have no idea what we're talking about.

i know what your talking about, if i had a 2000 i could compare the difference. it seems like the 2000 would still have to chop the sample (evan if it doesnt say it) to keep the same bpm, but also change the pitch.
and you can do both of those in the 2500.

djray182 wrote:i know what your talking about, if i had a 2000 i could compare the difference. it seems like the 2000 would still have to chop the sample (evan if it doesnt say it) to keep the same bpm, but also change the pitch.
and you can do both of those in the 2500.

no, that's not what we're talking about at all. this has nothing to do with chopping samples or trying to keep the same tempo while changing the pitch. it also has nothing to do with trying to keep the same pitch while changing the tempo.

let me try to simplify this again...

turn on your mpc. load up a sample. go to trim mode. highlight the sample name. click open window. you should now be in the sample window. this is the window that we're talking about.

do you see how there's a field for "tune"? adjust that field and it should work just like the pitch on a turntable. notice how when you make the tune higher, the pitch of the sample gets higher AND the tempo gets quicker? well, on the 2000xl, that same window also displayed in real time what the tempo of the sample was at tune of 0, as well as the tempo at the current tune you had it set at. so, essentially if you adjusted the tune of the sample, it would tell you what bpm you had to change your beat to so that the sample would fit.

i don't know how many more times i can explain it. if you still don't understand, go back and reread the whole post.

Antonym wrote:yo unless i missed something nobody was talking down to you...

since this is harder to do in newer mpcs, it's "clumsy" by comparison to how you describe it being in your older model mpc. i'm not looking down at anyone's tried and true pattern of work (in this particular case, anyway!!)

one more time, just so you and me are good - i wasn't saying YOU were clunky...

We all good money. I don't get into flames ever. I think we both too grown up for that.

Repect

dume41

I want to thank everyone who responded to this post. Thanks for reading. Thanks for the tips. It is clear to me, after reading the responses of those who understood the XL parameters page, that the JJ OS is the only answer for now. That's fine with me because autochop.. i REALLY don't think I'll ever need.. and even if I did need it, I wouldn't need it more than simple BPM matching.

Thanks to everyone, your input is appreciated.

dume41
myspace.com/severalactiveminds

dume41 wrote: That's fine with me because autochop..

dume41
myspace.com/severalactiveminds

It should really be called Ball Park Chop since it really just gives you points to work with that you will still want to adjust manually for good chops.
I would hate to think that people actually Auto Chop and use those nice evenly spaced chops.
You know dume you could always move up to the 4k and have more than you'll ever need.

THE ADVERSARY wrote:

dume41 wrote: That's fine with me because autochop..

dume41
myspace.com/severalactiveminds

You know dume you could always move up to the 4k and have more than you'll ever need.

HAH!!!