You guys like the sound of 2500/1000????

Iam curious, because from what I hear it sounds bad. I know the 2000xl was the worst I ever heard, but I was just curious. dont give me the " you get what you put in" BS either.


thanks

the xl sounds bad?

Some of you must have superhuman hearing or something, I never noticed any modern sampler sounding good or bad. to me its " you get what you put in"

to me its " you get what you put in"///


What is to "YOU" and and really is in "REALITY" are two different things.

Are you saying that your mpc 2000xl sound the same as my ASR10?



( think before you answer )

What is to "YOU" and and really is in "REALITY" are two different things.

very philosophical young man.

Never worked with an asr so I'm not comparing anything to an asr. But i have worked with many modern samplers. And I never noticed a difference

Modern samplers, like what for example? just to see what you consider modern.

not that a mpc 3000 is modern, but are you saying between a mpc 3000 and 2000xl there is no sound difference?

you get what you put in
they are currently the most transparent MPCs

I know the xl used to add a coat to its sound that was god awful...

firework wrote:Modern samplers, like what for example? just to see what you consider modern.

I guesse the 2000 and newer. I have never heard any difference. I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, maby there is something I just dont hear.

ok nevermind.

Every sampler has its own sound character - I think
For me the 2000 and the 2000 XL sounded better beacuse they seemed more warm sounding
But the "new" mpc's are still sound better than some other samplers today

Umm.. no. The 3000 sounds the best of any MPC with three zeroes in it's name. The 2000 was a massive step backwards in sound quality. The 2000XL sounds the same as the 2000. It's the same sampler, they added a few new features but the sample engine is the same. In my opinion the 1000/2500 are a step forward from the 2000/XL. They reproduce what you record into them more accurately than the 2000's did.

I've owned the 1000, 2000 and 3000 just in case you were wondering. Never used a 4000 so can't comment there. I used to have an Asr 10 too, in my opinion it's a very "smooth" sounding sampler, great for bass and keys but it sucks for drum sounds.

you get what you put in
they are currently the most transparent MPCs

I agree


I've owned the 2000, 4000 and now the MV. The one thing i like about the 4000 and 8800 is that they are very accurate and clean as hardware samplers go and don't have a 'sound'.
i think too many dudes have learned to repeat what they read and not tell what they hear ( or can't hear). The 1000/2500/500 are all sterile in sound.

Every sampler has its own sound character

I also agree with this statement.

hi,

what does it mean SOUND of a sampler ?
thats a character and quality/fidelity of
analog/digital converters - FIRST
and digital/analog then so we can hear the SOUND in speakers/phones

if we want to compare we need to compare A/D converters and D/A separately....
some MPC's got digital in/out - which in that experiment could be very useful
(for perfect check STRAIGHT signal)
example - record IN digital thru mpc3k and mpc2k ,mpc1k, xl
and then PLAY
what u can hear ( same level of dB - check the signal level !!)
is just D/A converter and differences....

so......
1k -
2k
2xl
3k
4k
0.5k
here we go, any differences???

another check out -
A/D converters
same signal - record thru A/D conv on all machines
but then PLAY not thru D/A, instead,
send signal thru DIGI OUT or just export/save SND/wav file and then open it on PC/MAC
idea :listen sound/music thru same D/A converter all machines..

so can U hear any differences???

I don't have all MPC..)
but Did it with 1k and 3k...

do you want to know what I've found????



good day Lads

I'm no specialist but to me, 2000, 2000xl adds that warmth to samples, sort of muddy/mellow sounding. Where as 1000/2500 sounds clearer. IMO


There was a audio comparison thread of different samplers, and believe it or not most people could not tell the difference or guess what sampler it came out of. If I remember correctly 1000/2500 sounded clearer and punchier than other 16bit samplers.

if we want to compare we need to compare A/D converters and D/A separately....

I disagree. The machine's internal sonic artifacts and noise are a large part what give it it's signature. So I believe the machine should be based on it's entire structure without any exclusions of it's actual hardware . Here's an working example.

The 2500 and 4000 are both based on the old but extremely powerful Z sample engine. In fact the 4000 is a full blown Z-8 with an MPC interface. That said, you'll have a hard time finding anyone with an experienced ear that can't noticed the difference in internal noise and clarity when comparing the two. My benchmark has always been the Miroslav Vitous Strings collection. Ilio still sells this i believe. The 4000 delivers it's brilliance and the 2500 reduces it to pure sh!!t.

what u can hear ( same level of dB - check the signal level !!)
is just D/A converter and differences....

so......
1k -
2k
2xl
3k
4k
0.5k
here we go, any differences??

Yes sir there is. 3 different engines + 3 different hardware architectures = three different sounds. Within the your group listed you have the S-1000, Z-8, and highly crippled Z-based engine. I can hear the difference quite clearly but I also add that with vynil or less than demanding material it's pretty much invisible.

We are are not that far apart on the issue.