JJ OS Bit Convert

someone had asked a while back in the 2500 forum for samples of what the JJ OS's bit convert sounded like. i just got around to sending the sample through my s950 (i didn't have it hooked up for a while), but here's the results if anyone's interested:

http://www.mikefeedback.com/MPC2500/Comparison/BLACKCOW_MPC2500_16bit_44100Hz.WAV

http://www.mikefeedback.com/MPC2500/Comparison/BLACKCOW_JJ_12bit_44100Hz.WAV
http://www.mikefeedback.com/MPC2500/Comparison/BLACKCOW_JJ_12bit_22050Hz.WAV
http://www.mikefeedback.com/MPC2500/Comparison/BLACKCOW_JJ_12bit_11025Hz.WAV

http://www.mikefeedback.com/MPC2500/Comparison/BLACKCOW_S950_12bit_19200Hz.WAV
http://www.mikefeedback.com/MPC2500/Comparison/BLACKCOW_S950_12bit_11025Hz.WAV

I think the s950 sounds pretty good overall.The JJ Os is good also, it just sounds like its trying real hard to emulate a SP or something.

damn, the high's dissapear in the JJOS bit reduction, the S950 sounds pretty clean

i know

i never go below 12 bit, but i notice a sharp rise in highs when you go down to 11025 khz. or not a "rise" but just an extra audibility since they get quantized.

Finally someone made a post for this! I've been wondering what the difference would be - seems like the s950 sounds nicer, but the JJ oS really isn't that bad, I mean, it is free. It's really better for doing just the drums imo. I like to keep my samples as high quality as I can.

technically speaking, this isn't a cheap process "trying to sound lofi." it is a "bit quantize." it forces the 16 bit wav file into whatever depth/sampling rate you choose, while keeping it actually 16 bit. it IS lofi - but it's as you said. the s950's converters compensate for those days' technologies by quietly adding to and manipulating the sound. "trying to sound as good as they can" is right - it's like an effect.

the big difference in the jj os bit convert is that it's not being played through a different sampler's converters, it's still being played through the mpc1000 converters.

moral for all: for pete's sake stop trying to make your beats sound 100% done straight out of the mpc. you're killin yourself.

that's always been the sound i've liked. nyquist frequency, huh...

tip of the day

snare01.wav, reduce to 7 or 8 bit 11025 hz. Assign it and put a LPF around 80/70, then simult it with the original snare and mess around with filters.. can you hear that gritty snare like somebody threw a bug of mud over it? no? your doing it wrong!

moral for all: for pete's sake stop trying to make your beats sound 100% done straight out of the mpc. you're killin yourself.

uhm, isn't that's why you mix your beat after you tracked it down in a daw? Or do you mean rythm and shuffle stuff?

uhm, isn't that's why you mix your beat after you tracked it down in a daw? Or do you mean rythm and shuffle stuff?

yeah you're absolutely right, that's why you mix your beat after you track it down in a daw - because it's a daw. you have finer control over a wider range of options. it's a question of workflow - workflow for mixing, eqing, and effects is better in a daw than an mpc.

on the other hand, as for rhythm and shuffle stuff, that is the mpc's work. the mpc is a compositional tool, not a DAW. the mpc's workflow is better suited to groove and composition than a daw's workflow is.

just different tools used at different times in the process. my comment is that a lot of people want to use the mpc to get to the last step - which is like using a very coarse grit sandpaper and not progressing to lighter grit to get the polished surface.

Antonym wrote:

uhm, isn't that's why you mix your beat after you tracked it down in a daw? Or do you mean rythm and shuffle stuff?

yeah you're absolutely right, that's why you mix your beat after you track it down in a daw - because it's a daw. you have finer control over a wider range of options. it's a question of workflow - workflow for mixing, eqing, and effects is better in a daw than an mpc.

on the other hand, as for rhythm and shuffle stuff, that is the mpc's work. the mpc is a compositional tool, not a DAW. the mpc's workflow is better suited to groove and composition than a daw's workflow is.

just different tools used at different times in the process. my comment is that a lot of people want to use the mpc to get to the last step - which is like using a very coarse grit sandpaper and not progressing to lighter grit to get the polished surface.

Good analogy!

Antonym wrote:

uhm, isn't that's why you mix your beat after you tracked it down in a daw? Or do you mean rythm and shuffle stuff?

yeah you're absolutely right, that's why you mix your beat after you track it down in a daw - because it's a daw. you have finer control over a wider range of options. it's a question of workflow - workflow for mixing, eqing, and effects is better in a daw than an mpc.

on the other hand, as for rhythm and shuffle stuff, that is the mpc's work. the mpc is a compositional tool, not a DAW. the mpc's workflow is better suited to groove and composition than a daw's workflow is.

just different tools used at different times in the process. my comment is that a lot of people want to use the mpc to get to the last step - which is like using a very coarse grit sandpaper and not progressing to lighter grit to get the polished surface.

So you frown upon a person who would do his mix completely in his MPC??

Antonym wrote:just different tools used at different times in the process. my comment is that a lot of people want to use the mpc to get to the last step - which is like using a very coarse grit sandpaper and not progressing to lighter grit to get the polished surface.

I feel you, actually, since i got my tascam fw 1082 with multiple inputs for the mp's outputs i started to make some nice stuff, i really love tracking everything seperate and try to make it bang as good as i can

i guess what nyms trying to say is that the mp got a typical sound, a little raw and in my opinion, it got difficulties with the higher edges of EQ..