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

2500 reduces it to pure sh!!t.

an extreme exaggeration, to be generous.

Take a good listen while changing velocity layers via MW or Bending chords while dynamically changing layers and you'll hear the glitches come to the front. On the 4000 no such artifacts are introduced.They are introduced because the 2500 is phrase sampler and and not a multisampler - so all of the parameters to make complex libraries work are not even present. This why the 2500 is so limited in it's import abilities.

The two conversions i heard and played pushed the 2500 it's limits and it didn't fair well. This isn't an issue your just chopping samples and playing drums but this a huge drawback should you find yourself needing to duplicate an instrument.



MPC2000/2000XL.......SEQ, WAV, SND, PGMm (incomplete parameter implementation)
MPC4000...................SEQ, WAV, PGM (DRUM
MPC3000...................SND (THRU Computer)
Z4/Z8....................... WAV only
S5000/6000...............WAV only (THRU Computer)
S1000/3000------------No compatibility

The 2500 doesn't even handle native Akai formats well. My opinion is that the 2500 is decent if this is where your sound starts and your not looking to duplicate other instruments.



For a $400 library to be reduced under the above circumstances - I stand by my statement and it's anything but exaggerated. IMO this is a direct result of dumbing down the sample engine. By reducing the size of sample engine a smaller capacity ( and much cheaper) on-board chip can be used to house the entire OS and a cheaper cpu to run it.

I respect your opinion and your rebuttal but I stand firm.

*** This dude deserves have his thread back. My apologies for drifting.

okay my 2 cents

the reason why most people say the 3000 is warm is because the majority of all the people making music on the 3000 are all record heads using vinyl only from the drums to the rest of their samples...

now with the 2500/1000 you have people sampling fuc*ing mp3's and transferring thier files usb, complaining about the way it sounds, expecting their sound engines to add the warmth that can only come from records...

come on if your sampling mp3 files or even wav files you'll get what you put into it, if your sampling records there's definitely the extra warmth you'll never get from the digital samples....

misunderstanding???

all i am saying is the SOUND it's not a ARCHITECTURE, engine or quality of cover....
that's simply A/D/A conversion
certainly there's jitter and other things in details with converters,
but quality of converters gives you THE SOUND

summary - to be 100% sure
is any differences between ;
A. sound of fruity loops and protools on audio out ?

that question will sort things out.)


good day

Arks: I'm sorry, I wasn't clear enough
I wanted to say the mpc 2000 sounded better for me than then 1000 and 2500
I can't say anything about mpc 3000 because I've never had one

all i am saying is the SOUND it's not a ARCHITECTURE, engine or quality of cover....

Because digital audio data cannot be heard without processing and conversion so you cannot remove these elements. The engine IS the sampler. It is the very wav processing code that will ultimatly shape what is to be heard. The hardware architecture is what delivers it to your ears. Without considering those two elements there is no SOUND - at all.

A 16 bit wav is constant amongst all samplers until it's processed at that point it will indeed change and depending on the factors above it's sonic signature will be determined. How robust the engine structured and coded determines how the frequency handling, dynamic range integrity,bit depth, introduce errors and other factors. The result of this is delivered through the digital outs but a D/A converter is still needed before you hear anything. Even if the conversion process removed from the equation there is a difference in wav data is what is delivered. Engines are rewritten constantly because of this.

The S-3000and S-1000 use the exact same D/A chipset yet they sound distinctly different providing the source material is of good quality. the 3000 is more accurate and less noisy. Aside major OS features- the main reason is that the surrounding hardware is more advanced and the sample engine considerably more robust - there still both 16 bit. notice the difference in size.

Actually, this discussion raises some questions about how sound processing devices are engineered in the first place. I have two thoughts, and it's funny but I've never actually put these two things together myself, but here they are:

The idea that these systems' A/D and D/A conversion are separable and can or *should* be evaluated that way sort of negates the actual point of the machine itself--to do both (and do both well).

I am actually an engineer myself and in designing systems (video, audio etc..) we are typically concerned with the overall response of the system, A/D and D/A included, and so that is primarily how things are tested and validated; end-to-end. This saves time in testing, and is practical (which is the hallmark of good engineering).

The second thing, and this is highly subjective now, is that despite technological advances, especially in recent years, that allow me to "import" wavs or sounds from machine to machine, I've never really importing sounds a very gratifying process. Yes, if I need to add a digital effect, importing can be useful, but I always have steered away from simply converting in one machine and outputting on another. It just never "sounds" right to me.

All this really implies is that the machines are engineered to sound good from end to end, and that the A/D conversion may lack something or have too much of something which is then adjusted at the D/A. Perhaps it's a bit of passband droop in the anti-aliasing filter or a slight notch at 1kHz, and then the DAC is carefully tuned to get the best response (which means fixing the A/D droop indirectly). All in all, I would simply say it is quite an oversimplification to assume that you can separate A/D and D/A and then come to a real conclusion. You could certainly gain some insight, but it's not necessarily the whole picture.

moyphee wrote:The 2500 and 4000 are both based on the old but extremely powerful Z sample engine.

not true: the 4k is, the 2500 isn't.

60vs3000vs2000/xlvs1000vs4000vsmyass...never tired?

will this topic ever die out? quit making excuses.

Personally, I've always been in favor of HIGH END sh!t.