The vintage vs. new school MPC battle

The thing I find bad about the 500, is not the small screen, not the fact that they didn't make a special lithium internal battery like cell phones to recharge, but the fact that it only has 12 pads. Most of you will say stuff like... how often do you use all 16 in a sequence... and so on.

Well it just doesn't make sense to me to chop a 16 beat sample loop into 12 parts and then try to time it..

Same with the MPK... you aren't going to put the damn midi keyboard in your trenchcoat insite pocket to jam on your laptop in the subway... so they could have added an extra 2 inches in length for the full 16 pads.

(By the way, I heard something about the MPK being bad for some reason.. bugs etc.. what is up with that?)

ONE wrote:So audiophiles are delusional when they hear differences too?

Usually.

MPC 2000 sounds different from an MPC 1000...and both of those sound different than an ASR 10. All of which are 16 bit. Record the exact same sound in all three, and the output of that sample will sound different on each of them.

In your mind. Do waveform analysis with all machines at equal decibel levels. Put a sample on a CF card; load it in a 500, 1000, and on a 2000XL with a CF card option. Record it at identical levels into a PC with a high-end sound card. You won't see any discernible difference, and certainly wouldn't hear anything.

I've had this argument with you before in the chatroom and it's tiresome. Until someone can hear a sample on a record at the same bit and sample rate and say, "Oh, that's the MPC 2500!" then I say it's BS. Even if these samplers did have some unique sound at the same bit and sample rate, it would be impossible to identify once fed through multiple speakers, amplifiers, mixers, and whatever minute things that would contribute to sound differences far more than the circuitry differences between an MPC 2500 and 500.

Let me guess -- you can tell the difference between AIFF and WAV files too? After all, they have minute differences between the two formats, akin to differences you'd find between a 500 and a 2500.

I know I can tell the difference between my ASR and the crappy mpc 1000/2500 thats for damn sure.


and dont forget, stiff ass pads on the 1000/2500

you ran from a battle.

hahahahaha!

firework wrote:I know I can tell the difference between my ASR and the crappy mpc 1000/2500 thats for damn sure.


and dont forget, stiff ass pads on the 1000/2500

yeah, in your own studio.... but not after a pro mixdown etc...

you cant tell the sound quality difference between the two when dr dre uses one or the other.

mr_debauch wrote:yeah, in your own studio.... but not after a pro mixdown etc...

you cant tell the sound quality difference between the two when dr dre uses one or the other.

I think a lot of people confuse design and user interface nuances with 'sound.' The former is real, the later not so much.

from my experience with 16-bit samplers (mpc-1000, e-mu e5000, mpc-2000xl, roland dj-70) the only one I could pick out soundwise was the 2000xl. That thing has a sound, some would say punchy, I would say more "dry" or "flat" where the others are rounder. the filters are a world apart however and once you have programmed the machines it becomes more apparent which is which.

testing by loading in samples doesn't count!!! you have to hit the a/d as well....

You gotta love these ears are your eyes debates.

calibrated ears...