Actually that last line is a selling point..lol..who doesnt need 100% solution in a box?
Hell Im gonna go get one now..
Lets talk SOUND: MPC vs Roland
- Thread starter Hi-Lo
- Start date
Actually that last line is a selling point..lol..who doesnt need 100% solution in a box?
Hell Im gonna go get one now..
Formant024
Digital Smokerings
ill o.g.
why not pay a producer, you wont need to do anything
I think it makes more sense to get the one with the best workflow. which is a personal thing so take a trip to GC. Read the manuals first tho, so you know what you're doing when you hop on the machine. More features don't make better music.
bigdmakintrax
BeatKreatoR
I know its been said b4, but anyhow I owned the 3000 for a good period of time and I have the mv right now, 2 of the beats in the showcase or on my link I did on the mv, but its how you process....eq and fx etc....with the 3000 you need good outboard setup or do it on a digital mixer or protools for the fx application....but the MV allows you, trust me you have to really get into it....to make your joints pretty much cd quality, full and thick, its like anything else you gotta know the eq settings, what fx and really that mixdown and mastering tool....I would venture to say I dont consider myself a pro but I have heard pro mixers and engineers do some shit with the mv that sound like any large studio work or protools Pro....
Sanova
Guess Who's Back
ill o.g.
Battle Points: 9
That's wussup.
Agent Smith
IllMuzik Junkie
ill o.g.
im gonna drop in my 2 cents (more like food for thought)
i'm in sort of the same situation as you (except i have an mpc 1000). I'm eventually going to upgrade to either an mpc 2500 or an mv8000. i'm leaning more and more towards the mv now that i've done my research. of course the mpc is the time tested standard but if you think about it, anything released after the year 2000 is no longer "time-tested"...it's based on the old school stuff but thats it. The technology is just as new across the board. although the original (mpc in this case) is better than the imitators most of the time, roland has been around since the 808 and it's not like they don't know what theyre doing. It looks like they may have even been able to take an amazing design and add features to it without having to cater to the old school heads, repeat (upgrade) customers, and cult fans that akai does.
that being said, the thing that sort of sells me about the mv is that there is an optional card that supports vga computer monitors...which means you can work with a bigger screen which is really important for me.
plus...the rza uses it.
word.
i'm in sort of the same situation as you (except i have an mpc 1000). I'm eventually going to upgrade to either an mpc 2500 or an mv8000. i'm leaning more and more towards the mv now that i've done my research. of course the mpc is the time tested standard but if you think about it, anything released after the year 2000 is no longer "time-tested"...it's based on the old school stuff but thats it. The technology is just as new across the board. although the original (mpc in this case) is better than the imitators most of the time, roland has been around since the 808 and it's not like they don't know what theyre doing. It looks like they may have even been able to take an amazing design and add features to it without having to cater to the old school heads, repeat (upgrade) customers, and cult fans that akai does.
that being said, the thing that sort of sells me about the mv is that there is an optional card that supports vga computer monitors...which means you can work with a bigger screen which is really important for me.
plus...the rza uses it.
word.
O
open mind
Guest
rza cant be wrong! get tha MV.