Synth Site: Akai: MPC4000: User reviews Add review
Average rating: 4.6 out of 5
page 9 of 16:   <<<  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  >>>
Jeff Lube a part-time user from L.A. writes:
OK, I have owned a 60 and eps 16+ (1990-1996) then bought a 3000 (1996-1997)then went back to a 60 until march of this year.

As I think I might have some experience on an MPC, I must tell anyone reading this for info to find out if they should buy one or not, that this machine is the shit!!!

Don't listen to all of the people who are hating!! (which seems to be most from reading these reviews).

I'm not mad if you are looking for the 12/16 bit sound... The 60 and 3000 are great in their own right but, a 5 year old could learn the interface in a matter hours. The 4000 will take time and if you think you will know how to tweak it because you owned a previous MP you are in for a big suprise. This is why people talk shit.

This machine is for grown men!! It is also for producers who want mega memory, storage and just the ease and quickness of loading sounds and or sampling, splicing ect.

I heard many a story about how the machine is too clean. load in a 12 bit sample and it will sound like a 12 bit sample. sample @ 24 bit stereo and you WILL hear the difference (your choice). I've been sampling @ 16 bit on it too...

It took me 2 solid months to figure shit out enough to feel good about going into a studio and using it. If you don't have the time, go with what you know...

I have yet to see a machine where it could load 1,000 sounds on demand in less than 2 min then sample a couple of things off of an old record tweak and sequence and have a foundation laid down in like less than 10 min.

Every downside I have read about, I have seemingly found a way around it and made it work for me.

YOU SEE... that's the problem here from reading below. When the 60 came out in '88 people were experimenting on how to take a drum machine (intended for drums only) and make a whole song with it. Today everyone wants to compare a new machine with the old. I LOVE the 60 and 3000. I just think that my 4000 has all of the extras I dreamed of 6 years ago. Once learned, It has cut my production time in half. More creativity more beats!

Ok, come and and hate :)

Rating: 5 out of 5 posted Friday-Oct-17-2003 at 20:42
K. from S. Jersey writes:
Here it is for all of the young people that might not know. The End ALL Be ALL of the MPC debates.

#1. The MPC60/60ii is the greatest sampler/sequencer of all time- just like Mike Tyson in his prime..think Tyson 1988 era.

#2. The Mpc3000 is just the better, improved version of the 60- think Tyson in 1989-90 when he was knocking everyone out in minutes

#3. The MPC2000 is Akai's attempt to be better then they already were without the help of Roger Linn- think Tyson in 1990 when he got knocked out by Buster Douglass..He didn't have any of his original team with him.

#4. The MPC2000xl was Akai trying to make a comeback and reprove themselves after the 2000's showing- think Tyson trying to make a comeback against Evander Holyfield.

#5. The MPC4000 was Akai once again trying to recapture some of the magic of a time well passed- think Tyson vs Lennox Lewis- he did his best but I think we all knew then that it was over for him.

#6. Finally the new MPC1000. Akai is trying to show the world that they still got it though reports state otherwise - think Tyson 2003 making a comeback; We'll all watch but do we really even care like we once did.....

But Hey Lets build a perfect drum machine and not fight over which of these is better...

Just think.. The Low End of the 60/60ii - Kick drums The high end of the EMU SP 12/1200's - snares + high hats The sequencer+ solid build of the 3000 - super tight feel The wave editing of the 2000/2000xl and the processing speed + storage space of the 4000... Now that would be something anyone listening......Peace

posted Thursday-Sep-25-2003 at 14:46
REDARMY a hobbyist user from STL writes:
The MPC-4000 ain't perfect but it is an MPC and as such follows the progression of improvements well as far as MPC's go. The MV-8000 spec are cool but going from a MPC-2000 to MPC-4000 I think roland might have dropped the ball only two midi outs?? those are MPC-2000 specs and all the extra bells and wistles don't matter much if you make beats like I do. The 4000 is worth the money it is a good machine and you can alter the sounds a great deal and interface is better by default a green screen roland? Once again a competitor has dropped the ball all so called MPC clones bite I own an ASR-X it ain't an MPC!And this poorly excuted MV-8000 ain't either!

Rating: 4 out of 5 posted Monday-Sep-22-2003 at 17:49
Jahrome a part-time user writes:
You will have to re-read the poorly written manual for the MPC 4000. The editing on this unit is far more comprehensive than the previous MPCs which really only have sample trim editing features. The 4000 does do the same thing but in a different way. The sampler editing functions in this unit are no more complicated than other leading hardware based samplers.

posted Saturday-Jun-14-2003 at 00:31
Joe Sample(r) from Monterey Park, CA writes:
Picked up the 4000 because of restlessness with the max RAM and sample tweaking options (or lack of) in the MPC60 (3000 upgrade) that I had been using for years. I needed some time to get used to basic improvements that had been made on the MPC line since the original 60.

- This is an ugly machine! Looks perfect, tho, next to my ASR X Pro, in conjunction making one of the most toyish looking rigs ever, tho its got some muscle.

- I had some problems (runnning 1.40) when editing samples, if I set the start point at a certain value (eg 100,000), and then move it to a lower value, I then cannot move the end point of the sample lower than 100,000, for some strange reason. I hope this is a procedural issue.

- Also having problems (as others have mentioned) changing trigger modes to note off, poly, mono, or where one pad cuts off another (frequently used on my MPC60).

- I dont like the sample editing interface; when you want to go from editing one sample to another, you have to access that sample from a 'sample list' page, whereas on the old MPC60, you can just tap the pad containing the sample and from there you can edit the start/end point. The overall sample editing interface is a little more complex, but as a tradeoff you can do way more things than on the 60, and at a faster rate. Timestretch is musch faster than Ensoniq mahcines and sounds pretty good.

- I cant get the Q Link to actually record desired effects into the sequencer, although the manual states you can do alladat. I thought what a great idea to put all those realtime controls, now if only I could actually sync the knobs to some of the cool filters. IT seems as if when I assigned the 'filter cutoff' value to the q links knobs, the q link would NOT effect the specific filter that I selected for that sample in the filter selection. Instead, it was some different type (LPF) of cutoff that was being affected, and even then I couldn’t get it to save to the sequencer.

- The sequencer is better than ever which is great news to me because I dont generally quantize drums except maybe the snare. More ppq equals a more accurate replay of the notes you just laid down (for non quantizers). Going from sequence to sequnce is unsurprisingly improved over the 60/3000 upgrade.

- The effects are useable, I still prefer those on the ASR10 keyboard, most of which gave a warm feeling, comparatively to this. Howvere, here you can select up to 4. Most useful fx are reverbs used in serious moderation. Didnt especially like the EQ, Distortion, flange or enchancer effects (sounded like cheap computer effects) but may find some use for them in the future.

After spending 2 weeks with this machine, I am still frustrated at certain aspects, but also appreciative of the advanced functions and unlimited muscle of the 4000. There seems to be a break in period with this machine, and my hope is that future OSs, or getting help from other MPC4000(holla at ya dog!) users will help me get over the problems I have encountered.

Rating: 3 out of 5 posted Tuesday-Jun-10-2003 at 13:47
page 9 of 16:   <<<  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  >>>