[HN Gopher] AKAI MPC 3000: The Best Drum Machine of All Time
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       AKAI MPC 3000: The Best Drum Machine of All Time
        
       Author : midislack
       Score  : 35 points
       Date   : 2022-05-29 18:32 UTC (4 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (audiojive.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (audiojive.com)
        
       | smoldesu wrote:
       | The best drum machine of all time is the Digitakt. Case closed.
        
       | addajones wrote:
       | I used to have 2 of these. They were amazing. I miss simplicity.
        
       | parenthesis wrote:
       | Ian Pooley is still using his:
       | 
       | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJv9nnnQHRs
       | 
       | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huC-0InPdjY
        
         | xoac wrote:
         | These videos are nice but unless you are Ian Pooley who has
         | spent decades working with his, it's probably going to be a bad
         | idea for someone to buy this and expect that they're going to
         | be making sick beatz like him.
        
       | poisonarena wrote:
       | TOTALLY DISAGREE..
       | 
       | The MPC 3000 is not even a drum machine, and also for me, its the
       | MPC2000XL or MPC60, colors sound much better, but if I want an
       | MPC sampler that is STERILE like the 3000 I much prefer the
       | MPC1000 (2nd generation without the pad issues) with jj os.
       | 
       | I get people found out about J Dilla (mostly after he died), and
       | he was a cool producer but the best tracks were made with the
       | 2000s/60s and SP-12s. But in the mid 2000s when j dilla died I
       | feel like the MPC community got PERVERTED by 'Dilla Fans' who
       | found out about MPC's because of him, and changed the course of
       | things quite a bit
       | 
       | The rack mounted Akai stuff was better. I remember people
       | bitching about the MPC3000 for more than a decade on
       | gearslutz(sorry, i know we cant call it that anymore). But
       | because J Dilla used it now its THE BEST OF ALL TIME. No way!
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | alfiedotwtf wrote:
         | This. The 909 is where it's at... at least for techno!
        
       | jacquesm wrote:
       | I've had a request for a slider knob for one of these from
       | someone and I have been scrounging ebay and local equivalents for
       | quite a while now, they even go for good money when they're
       | broken.
        
       | vr46 wrote:
       | I've just bought an MPC One recently and while it is very good, I
       | don't share the fawning of the author for the Akai machines.
       | Indeed, I always suspect that articles like this are there to
       | push up prices of hardware by bigging them up with a fantastic
       | mythology. It happens with cameras too. It's bollocks, quite
       | frankly.
        
         | xoac wrote:
         | I suspect VCs have discovered old samplers and analog synths
         | and are investing heavily.
        
       | Sporktacular wrote:
       | This reads like it's some oogoody boogidy magical audiophile
       | hardware.
       | 
       | "The timing on the MPC 3000 is extremely tight and about as true
       | as you can get". What does that mean? The clocking of the 16MHz
       | CPU makes it audibly more precise than a 8 MHz CPU? Even for a
       | tune at 10 000 BPM jitter would sound identically inaudible. Turn
       | off quantization and what's the difference anyway?
       | 
       | "You can't really get a computer or any DAW to sound like an MPC
       | 3000. Some claim its a matter of boosting the low end, and
       | cutting some of the high end frequencies to match the sound of
       | the 3000. This is simply false."
       | 
       | This is just dumb snake oil level crap. All these things have
       | transfer functions that can be modelled, if you really believe
       | you can hear a difference, which you are almost certainly
       | imagining.
       | 
       | "The DAC on the MPC 3000 is extremely unique. It's a machine and
       | it sounds like a machine, in a good way. In the best way
       | possible."
       | 
       | Writer sounds like a machine. Not in a good way.
        
         | addajones wrote:
         | Have you ever used it though? I've produced records on an MPC
         | 3000 and then later in pro tools, logic, ableton, fl studio,
         | etc. the MPC 3000 has its own unique sound and timing. If you
         | actually used it , I'd understand your comment perhaps? Sure
         | the writer is exaggerating a bit and glorifying, but it's
         | amazing and you cannot compare the timing and sound of it to
         | anything else. It is unique AF.
        
           | abraae wrote:
           | I feel you're just reinforcing the parent's points.
           | 
           | > the MPC 3000 has its own unique sound and timing
           | 
           | Why would I want "unique" timing?
           | 
           | The article says "The timing on the MPC 3000 is extremely
           | tight and about as true as you can get". Timing can't be both
           | "true" and "unique", which is it?
        
             | xoac wrote:
             | This paradox is literally in every discussion about old
             | MPCs and has been for the past 20 years that I'm reading
             | these things. Part of the character was "the swing" but
             | also the hardware wasn't exactly able to accurately
             | reproduce the timing. I remember reading someone doing
             | tests that the midi latency however was very low.
        
           | Sporktacular wrote:
           | I have used one. Sound was fine but nothing that can't be
           | approximated. The advantages over a DAW have a lot to do with
           | interface and tactility.
           | 
           | Comment was about the article but can you elaborate on what
           | you mean by timing? Jitter? Latency of the pads?
        
         | xhevahir wrote:
         | The obscurantism is typical of the discourse surrounding these
         | machines.
         | 
         | The creator, Roger Linn, gives a pretty good interview here:
         | https://www.attackmagazine.com/features/interview/roger-linn...
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | whywhywhywhy wrote:
         | Yeah, I totally understand a tool being better for creating
         | purely because of the interface and feel of the device and
         | other things that might not be understandable.
         | 
         | But let's stop pretending there is some implementation tech
         | magic that modern hardware can't replicate at work.
        
           | khazhoux wrote:
           | I haven't used one, but I'm inclined to side with article.
           | Just because a signal path _can_ be replicated doesn't mean
           | it _has_ been replicated. I have tons of music gear and can
           | easily point you to the ones that inexplicably have a special
           | something.
        
       | boredemployee wrote:
       | Nice to see one of J Dilla's weapons here. :)
        
       | ls15 wrote:
       | "Best Drum Machine" depends on genre and era. While legendary in
       | many genres, the MPC never was a full replacement for a 808 or a
       | 909 in their fields, even though there are tons of 808 and 909
       | sample kits for the MPC available.
        
         | poisonarena wrote:
         | Its a sampler, not a drum machine
        
         | baflow wrote:
         | we need to define what best means. 808 it's not a sampler. mpc
         | have a way more possibilities for shaping a sound.
         | 
         | I believe that these two devices should not be compared with
         | each other because they serve completely different purposes
        
           | ls15 wrote:
           | > we need to define what best means.
           | 
           | I think we also need to define what _drum machine_ means. To
           | me the MPC mainly is a _drum sampler_ , while the 808 is an
           | analog drum synthesizer.
           | 
           | > mpc have a way more possibilities for shaping a sound.
           | 
           | And yet the 808 can make sounds that the MPC cannot make.
        
             | Sporktacular wrote:
             | Unless an MPC samples one.
        
       | 8bitsrule wrote:
       | If it does what you want, the 3000 is fine, but also take a look
       | at the 2000. If you don't want many of the upgrades it's a _whole
       | lot_ less.
        
       | gtvwill wrote:
       | It's a cool rig but all time best is a bit of a big call. Most
       | famous yeah but best...eh matter of opinion.
       | 
       | I really wish akai would open up the software on the latest MPCs
       | a bit more.My 100% biggest gripe with 90% of music hardware and
       | software companies is their lack of openness and through this
       | their lack of connectivity. It's like every man and their dog
       | wants to be a mini apple with their own closed ecosystem. So very
       | far from the ethos of music is for all imho. MPCs could actually
       | be the best rigs on the market today if they were a bit more
       | open!
        
         | 323 wrote:
         | Most musical hardware being closed is a feature. It's what
         | gives the "it just works" quality.
         | 
         | Computer software can be open, and why it's difficult relying
         | on a computer during a live performance, you never know when
         | some weird incompatibility might occur.
         | 
         | If musical hardware were open, people would install random
         | stuff from GitHub on them, and then complain to the hardware
         | maker that it crashed during a performance.
         | 
         | Also, you can buy MIDI controllers if you are into open, you
         | are not locked into anything.
        
           | rektide wrote:
           | This thesis would be more interesting if it had some actual
           | examples & evidence of being true.
        
           | gtvwill wrote:
           | Yeah nah that's a a bit of a lie. I generally put a fair bit
           | of effort into buying open and not locked down hardware.
           | Saying my gear is gonna lock up during a 8 hour session
           | because it's not all from some locked down ecosystem is porky
           | pies.
           | 
           | Your spreading fud. It generally winds up being if you think
           | computers are unreliable for music production your probably
           | just doing it wrong re. setup and config of your computer.
           | 
           | Also just for anyone reading this into DJing but wants to
           | avoid closed apps. Ditch serato and Pioneer, virtualDj is way
           | more advanced software wise, way more polished and way more
           | open. Give it a burl the AI stems are a game changer.
        
             | 323 wrote:
             | > _virtualDj is way more advanced software wise_
             | 
             | Funny quote from their homepage: "There's a reason why
             | everybody starts with VirtualDJ." So, they start with
             | VirtualDJ, but what do they end with?
        
               | gtvwill wrote:
               | Started on VDJ about a decade ago because it was the most
               | pirated easy to get run entirely on your PC DJ software.
               | Got serato pro with a bit of hardware and it's incredibly
               | underwhelming piece of software. Legit it actually sucks
               | compared to VDJ. Half of seratos features are a paid
               | upgrade, it sucks for supporting hardware, they basically
               | ruined their DVS support. Not to mention like ultra basic
               | aspects of programs arent even implemented. Serato...zero
               | touch support, zero capacity to re arrange the UI, lol it
               | doesn't even handle scaling well, can't read text on half
               | the menus because they get pushed off screen by scaling,
               | can't even resize them to fit. Lol serato is a joke so is
               | the industries support of it.
        
         | poisonarena wrote:
         | I dont think it was the most famous
        
           | kalupa wrote:
           | I'd agree. The 909 or 808 is probably more well known.
        
         | comboy wrote:
         | Most music related hardware is in fact software nowadays. They
         | won't give away the thing that they are selling. And regarding
         | connectivity most have DAW integrations (MPC plays nice with
         | ableton I think) and from there you can script whatever you
         | want.
         | 
         | FWIW I prefer if the industry goes more apple than linux way
         | (and I'm saying that as a linux user). I'd rather create music
         | than configs.
        
       | MrMan wrote:
       | The mpc 4000 is much better
        
       | xoac wrote:
       | This article is a joke honestly.
        
         | jacquesm wrote:
         | That may be so but then the burden is on you to show _why_ that
         | is the case, not to just state it.
        
           | xoac wrote:
           | I'm gonna be Cartesian tonight and say that some truths are
           | self-evident and one of them is that this article is a joke.
           | As I said in the thread below, I've used this machine and
           | many others and if you've done similiar it should be self-
           | evident that this fawning click-bait article was written by
           | some child.
        
         | Sporktacular wrote:
         | Agreed.
        
         | E2EEd wrote:
         | False. Akai MPC3000 was the pinnacle of rap/r&b beat machines
         | in its time. The info conveyed is serious, not a joke. GOAT is
         | an opinion.
        
           | poisonarena wrote:
           | It wasnt even the pinnacle of rap/r&b.. It was one of the
           | least popular samplers from Akai
        
           | Sporktacular wrote:
           | Parent didn't critique the machine, just the article.
        
             | pvg wrote:
             | An unsubstantive one-liner doesn't meet the HN bar for
             | critique
        
               | xoac wrote:
               | OP doesn't even meet the bar for toilet reading, I mean I
               | would rather re-read the laundry detergent label.
        
               | pvg wrote:
               | You're welcome to do that, it's just not an interesting
               | thing to tell other people on this particular forum.
        
               | Sporktacular wrote:
               | Fine. Parent didn't criticise the machine, just the
               | article.
        
           | xoac wrote:
           | Ok and my opinion is that the article is a joke. Also you
           | telling me that it was the pinnacle of beat machines of it's
           | time is like apple conveying to us every time that this is
           | their best computer _yet_ (an even more ridiculous joke). The
           | OP is actually titled THE BEST DRUM MACHINE OF ALL TIME. My
           | guess is that someone quite young wrote this.
           | 
           | For example is this serious information to you?
           | The Timing              When you talk to fans of the MPC
           | 3000, you hear them talk about "The Feel." They will tell you
           | that the feel of the 3000 is like no other drum machine or
           | sampler that exists. This is due to the timing that Roger
           | Linn built into the machine. The timing on the MPC 3000 is
           | extremely tight and about as true as you can get. It will
           | record exactly what you play. Essentially, it is the essense
           | of what a "groovebox" is.       The sequencer on the MPC 3000
           | is second to none.
           | 
           | This is just false. The sequencer on it is good, but of
           | course there are many vastly better sequencers.
           | 
           | Disclaimer: I've used many sequencers including the one we
           | are discussing.
        
             | addajones wrote:
             | It was a great sequencer specifically for some kicks snares
             | and hi hats. Combined with the gritty sound it had, it was
             | very pleasing. It's not the best sequencer. There is no
             | best sequencer. Going from idea to completion is what
             | matters most. I personally couldn't stand the Zip disks
             | anymore with it.
        
               | xoac wrote:
               | But that's setting the bar a bit low? There are many
               | things that could accomplish this task extremely well
               | (sequencing some kicks snares and hihats). The problem
               | here for me (aside from the terrible writing) is
               | fetishization of old and hard to obtain gear. Someone
               | then purchases it and it collects dust because it
               | requires more effort to use, or you don't want to devalue
               | your investment.
               | 
               | I like the sound and some of records I like were produced
               | with it.
        
         | [deleted]
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-05-29 23:01 UTC)