MPC1000 or MC-909 or RS7000 ?

[jknust]

I'm debating on a sampler / groovebox and wanted to get opinions. Please!!

I've been shopping these three listed in the subject, and all appear to be decent. Priced from highest to lowest are MPC1000, MC-909 and RS7000. Which would probably be the best value? Or, is there another product I should consider?

I'm hoping to pick up an Access Virus TI, or perhaps an Access Virus C at a bargain price in the next 45 days.... so which of those three might best compliment my upcoming Virus? Or, if I get a TI, is ther as much need for one of these samplers/ groove boxes? My focus will be Techno / Trance type of music with inspiration from the likes of Tiesto, Oakenfold, Armin, Van Dyk, BT, etc.

Thanks in advance!!

[Merlot]

If you have a computer, software can emulate these and do more. The only advantage to having those boxes are the immediate sounds in the 909 or 7000 and the pads to trigger sequences, or program drums. If you have a computer, you could use, say Battery 2, and get an akai mpd16. Software is defenitely the cheaper way to go.
Also, on the TI you will need a computer to program your own arpegiations via its editor. Some food for thought. :)

[nordlead]

Hi. I have had both the yamaha and the roland.

These machines have two parts: the sequencer and the sound module, that uses samples, not a real synth.

From my experience the yamaha is the better sequencer by far: easy to use, easy to edit and user-friendly controls (once you master them). Its also very comfortable to use live and the layout makes it very easy to alter, combine, etc.. patterns live. The sound module is poor though. Some nice sounds here and there, but overall its bad. Very limited tweaking and the effects are quite poor. You can do nice stuff, but its very very limited.

The roland is the other way around: better synth part, although limited, but worse sequencer part (very messy and not so intuitive live). Typical roland sounds, especially drumkits.

I'm looking to get an mpc1000 second hand, so I cant comment yet.

If you want to buy an all-in-one module and dont have any other synths or computer, and never had, try a second hand 505 or a RM1x. I'd go for the rm1x, should cost around 200?. Both 909 and rs7000 share the same sound modules as their respective little brothers, and the other differences, while big, arent really necessary. If you really like it, resell it and get the bigger one.

BTW, at 900? the mpc1000 is the cheapest of the 3, but I think its thought to be more of a percusion sampler, and with no sound module, so maybe you would need more gear.

If you are not going to do live, maybe you should look into getting a computer.

[jknust]

Thanks for the responses guys.

I have a Roland JX-305 right now which has most of the MC-505 Groovebox funcitons. This got me looking at the MC-909. I have lots of computers, I run an IT company, so I should be OK there and will look into the software.

Since I spend most of my day on a PC, I really like the thought of laying my hands on equipment versus sliding things around with a mouse. However, it sounds like I should look at the software side and consider.

When I look at the Access VIrus stuff.... I feel like I just ogtta have one. I wanted to build up my other hardware too and wasn't sure how much I could do with the TI and a PC.

[nordlead]

I understand you. I've had computer all my life and always used cubase and vsts, but I prefer using hardware. Right now I use a second hand rm1x as my sequencer, and also use a VirusC, a machinedrum and an evolver.

Its not that much about the sound quality, but more about the interface and doing the songs live rather than sequencing all the stuff in sitting in front of my computer. The production is less elaborate, but its ten times the fun.

After all this I must say its easier and cleaner to do everything on your computer.

[unio mystica]

I?ve never used the Akai or MC909 but I have owned a Yamaha RM1x for about 5-6 years and I think it?s the most versatile and quickest sequencer for make tunes with. It?s absolutely unbelievable. I think it?s even better than most software sequencers around. It totally kicks pro tools ass!!! The RS7000 should be the same machine with better on-board sounds.

[hatembr]

i saw a friend working with a yamaha qy700 sequencer and i really wonder how u find the hardware sequencers easier to use than software ones! can't get it! :?
it had no visual interface, everything is in text mode, black on greenish grey... and it has kind of black & white pads to simulate 1-octave keyboard keys ... weeeeiiiiiiiird

[unio mystica]

i saw a friend working with a yamaha qy700 sequencer and i really wonder how u find the hardware sequencers easier to use than software ones! can't get it! :?
it had no visual interface, everything is in text mode, black on greenish grey... and it has kind of black & white pads to simulate 1-octave keyboard keys ... weeeeiiiiiiiird

When you really get inside one, it is easier. And who really uses the pads? Everyone has to have atleast one keyboard right? I use the pads only for step sequencing.

[nordlead]

Hatembr, its actually quite easy to sequence, but when I try to do something more complicated I do it in cubase first. Once finished I hit rec on my rm1x and play on cubase and, voila, my sequence is in my rm1x!

[Merlot]

I think it?s even better than most software sequencers around. It totally kicks pro tools ass!!!

??????????? :? :? :? :? :?

[Onkel Dunkel]

I have a Emu XL-7 (multitrack sequenser sound module grovebox thingy). It was kinda the first seriuos toy for my new hobby and for a long time i used this as a stand-alone but i found out that it was too complicated and time-consuming to fidle around with menus all the time and when i got my Virus i realised that it wasn?t very good for controlling the Virus. Then i decided to learn how to use Cubase (i had only played a little round with Cubasis earlier). Actually my Virus was a big turnover in my understading of music-production since it keeps challanging me in a positive maner and has opened my eyes for the posibillities of software sequensers. Now i only use the XL-7 as a sound module. Besides that the Virus has giving me far more understanding about synthesis that the XL-7 could ever do. Hail to the Virus :twisted: (i guess the last of it was a little off subject 8) )

[hatembr]

I think it?s even better than most software sequencers around. It totally kicks pro tools ass!!!


m8, sorry but can't believe it !! :lol:

[unio mystica]

I think it?s even better than most software sequencers around. It totally kicks pro tools ass!!!


m8, sorry but can't believe it !! :lol:

So let me explain why:

First of all Pro Tools is not much of a MIDI sequencer. It?s designed for audio sequencing and it?s much better that way. Cubase and Logic for example are much better when working with MIDI. Have you ever thought why no one who is someone (when talking about electronic music) always use Cubase or Logic? Because they are better and easier MIDI sequencers than Pro Tools is.

1. The quantizing of the RM1X and Pro Tools are almost identical. Though it?s easier to use it on the RM1X.

2. Everything has it?s own knob or button on the RM1X. The Pro Tools system works only with a mouse unless you deside to buy the control unit which costs a fortune. The RM1X is easier to use overall.

3. Working with RM1X is very easy and fast because it hides inside functions that nobody thought when they were designing Pro Tools. It?s really clever when you get to know how to use it well. You can easily edit and/or copy&paste or create automations on anything you like with a few touches of buttons. Pro tools is more complicated. The edit mode in the RM1X is also easy as can be.

4. The analog-style step sequencer. Pro Tools has nothing to compete.

5. You have no distracktions between you and your music when working with the RM1X (or any other hw-sequencer). Read this and you get the point: http://www.eqmag.com/archive/1204/1204_Features2.htm

6. There are many badly designed functions in the Pro Tools. The sysex function for example sucks. We were trying to make the Pro Tools send sysex messages in our school with about 20 students and one teacher (who wasn?t using it for the first time). We never did...

7. You really don?t need everything on the face of the earth to make songs. MIDI is extremely simple. Just put a note there and there and adjust the velocities and a little filter automation over here. Why did you think they have never developed a completely new system after MIDI arrived (Which was 1983 I think. A long time if you think how fast the technology evolves nowadays). So what do you need Pro Tools for? There?s nothing there that RM1X hasn?t. Without the easy use.

+ I?m about the only one on this forum who really uses Pro Tools (for Audio recording, editing and mixing at my school) and the RM1X (at my own studio for making songs). I know them both.

And why is Pro Tools better:

1. Polyphony is virtually infinite.

2. If you work with software only.

3. If you like to see everything on a big screen.

4. If you use a lot of audio material.

5. It?s more versatile.

6. It?s more accurate.

7. Pro Tools is Pro Tools.

[unio mystica]

Hatembr, its actually quite easy to sequence, but when I try to do something more complicated I do it in cubase first. Once finished I hit rec on my rm1x and play on cubase and, voila, my sequence is in my rm1x!

...And like he says, you can use them both if you like.

[Merlot]

So let me explain why:

First of all Pro Tools is not much of a MIDI sequencer. It?s designed for audio sequencing and it?s much better that way. Cubase and Logic for example are much better when working with MIDI. Have you ever thought why no one who is someone (when talking about electronic music) always use Cubase or Logic? Because they are better and easier MIDI sequencers than Pro Tools is

Agreed

1. The quantizing of the RM1X and Pro Tools are almost identical. Though it?s easier to use it on the RM1X.
Dont know b/c I haven't used RM1X in about 6 years.

2. Everything has it?s own knob or button on the RM1X. The Pro Tools system works only with a mouse unless you deside to buy the control unit which costs a fortune. The RM1X is easier to use overall.
Whats wrong with using a mouse. Here it comes down to personal preference.

3. Working with RM1X is very easy and fast because it hides inside functions that nobody thought when they were designing Pro Tools. It?s really clever when you get to know how to use it well. You can easily edit and/or copy&paste or create automations on anything you like with a few touches of buttons. Pro tools is more complicated. The edit mode in the RM1X is also easy as can be.
Am not arguing for pro tools on this one, but logic and cubase make automation, editing, copying and pasting, and everything else the RM1X can edit easier b/c everything is graphically represented, and not on a 2 line display with just values. Also, all it takes to edit in logic and cubase, is a mouse click.

4. The analog-style step sequencer. Pro Tools has nothing to compete.
Logic has the hyperedit, and there avst plugins for step sequencers.

5. You have no distracktions between you and your music when working with the RM1X (or any other hw-sequencer). Read this and you get the point: http://www.eqmag.com/archive/1204/1204_Features2.htm
Good article. From the first paragraph though: "there?s also no denying that technology makes possible music that was never possible before, and can even provide the means to streamline its production. "
Comes down to personal preference and work style on this one, and how far you want to push your music.

6. There are many badly designed functions in the Pro Tools. The sysex function for example sucks. We were trying to make the Pro Tools send sysex messages in our school with about 20 students and one teacher (who wasn?t using it for the first time). We never did...
Dont use pro tools, so I would be speaking out of my ass on this one.

7. You really don?t need everything on the face of the earth to make songs. MIDI is extremely simple. Just put a note there and there and adjust the velocities and a little filter automation over here. Why did you think they have never developed a completely new system after MIDI arrived (Which was 1983 I think. A long time if you think how fast the technology evolves nowadays). So what do you need Pro Tools for? There?s nothing there that RM1X hasn?t. Without the easy use.
If it makes life easier, why would you not want to use it? Pro tools in my opinion is easier to use due to the graphical representations of the waveformms, or piano roll in the case of MIDI. I am no music scholar, so the visualization of the piano roll makes it easier instead of imputting C#4, D2, Bb7, etc.....

And why is Pro Tools better:
1. Polyphony is virtually infinite.
2. If you work with software only.
3. If you like to see everything on a big screen.
4. If you use a lot of audio material.
5. It?s more versatile.
6. It?s more accurate.
7. Pro Tools is Pro Tools.
Those are enough right there to make me want to use a software sequencer.[/b]

[unio mystica]

So let me explain why:

First of all Pro Tools is not much of a MIDI sequencer. It?s designed for audio sequencing and it?s much better that way. Cubase and Logic for example are much better when working with MIDI. Have you ever thought why no one who is someone (when talking about electronic music) always use Cubase or Logic? Because they are better and easier MIDI sequencers than Pro Tools is

Agreed

1. The quantizing of the RM1X and Pro Tools are almost identical. Though it?s easier to use it on the RM1X.
Dont know b/c I haven't used RM1X in about 6 years.

2. Everything has it?s own knob or button on the RM1X. The Pro Tools system works only with a mouse unless you deside to buy the control unit which costs a fortune. The RM1X is easier to use overall.
Whats wrong with using a mouse. Here it comes down to personal preference.

3. Working with RM1X is very easy and fast because it hides inside functions that nobody thought when they were designing Pro Tools. It?s really clever when you get to know how to use it well. You can easily edit and/or copy&paste or create automations on anything you like with a few touches of buttons. Pro tools is more complicated. The edit mode in the RM1X is also easy as can be.
Am not arguing for pro tools on this one, but logic and cubase make automation, editing, copying and pasting, and everything else the RM1X can edit easier b/c everything is graphically represented, and not on a 2 line display with just values. Also, all it takes to edit in logic and cubase, is a mouse click.

4. The analog-style step sequencer. Pro Tools has nothing to compete.
Logic has the hyperedit, and there avst plugins for step sequencers.

5. You have no distracktions between you and your music when working with the RM1X (or any other hw-sequencer). Read this and you get the point: http://www.eqmag.com/archive/1204/1204_Features2.htm
Good article. From the first paragraph though: "there?s also no denying that technology makes possible music that was never possible before, and can even provide the means to streamline its production. "
Comes down to personal preference and work style on this one, and how far you want to push your music.

6. There are many badly designed functions in the Pro Tools. The sysex function for example sucks. We were trying to make the Pro Tools send sysex messages in our school with about 20 students and one teacher (who wasn?t using it for the first time). We never did...
Dont use pro tools, so I would be speaking out of my ass on this one.

7. You really don?t need everything on the face of the earth to make songs. MIDI is extremely simple. Just put a note there and there and adjust the velocities and a little filter automation over here. Why did you think they have never developed a completely new system after MIDI arrived (Which was 1983 I think. A long time if you think how fast the technology evolves nowadays). So what do you need Pro Tools for? There?s nothing there that RM1X hasn?t. Without the easy use.
If it makes life easier, why would you not want to use it? Pro tools in my opinion is easier to use due to the graphical representations of the waveformms, or piano roll in the case of MIDI. I am no music scholar, so the visualization of the piano roll makes it easier instead of imputting C#4, D2, Bb7, etc.....

And why is Pro Tools better:
1. Polyphony is virtually infinite.
2. If you work with software only.
3. If you like to see everything on a big screen.
4. If you use a lot of audio material.
5. It?s more versatile.
6. It?s more accurate.
7. Pro Tools is Pro Tools.
Those are enough right there to make me want to use a software sequencer.[/b]


You are right on the section 2. It?s all about how you wish to work.

You are also right when it comes to editing with Cubase or Logic (3.). They are easier. But Pro Tools isn?t.

4. Right again.

5. You got a point there, but it?s again all about how you wish to work.

7. And the same thing again. All about how you wish to work.

back to the topic

Choose the yamaha or the akai: Check them both out before desiding

[unio mystica]

And why is Pro Tools better:
1. Polyphony is virtually infinite.
2. If you work with software only.
3. If you like to see everything on a big screen.
4. If you use a lot of audio material.
5. It?s more versatile.
6. It?s more accurate.
7. Pro Tools is Pro Tools.
Those are enough right there to make me want to use a software sequencer.[/b]

Right. It has many posibilities but if you make electronic music I would choose either Cubase or Logic or a Hardware sequencer. Pro Tools is so damn bad at MIDI-sequencing.

[Merlot]

Pro Tools is so damn bad at MIDI-sequencing.

Agreed. But for audio it cant be beat. Once again, it all comes down to how YOU want to work. Good conersation! :)

[unio mystica]

RM1X doesn?t even have audio-sequencing capabilities. I was talking about MIDI all the time. Remember that this conversation began about hardware-sequencers.

Good conversation indeed.

[ledge]

I think it?s even better than most software sequencers around. It totally kicks pro tools ass!!!


m8, sorry but can't believe it !! :lol:

So let me explain why:


6. There are many badly designed functions in the Pro Tools. The sysex function for example sucks. We were trying to make the Pro Tools send sysex messages in our school with about 20 students and one teacher (who wasn?t using it for the first time). We never did...


Odd, I had no problems with this after some initial issues with getting protools to play anything, (talk about a complete resource hog, if you ever get a DIGI002 save yourself a lot of pain and reinstall your entire OS from scratch, although the latest versions of protools (6.4 on) seem to be a bit more forgiving.)

Yes midi is not the best on it but it has been getting better and there seem to be a few really nice features added in 6.7 but that is a goddamn upgrade for me :x It now seems to have a step sequencer but I can't comment on it as I don't have 6.7

[jknust]

Thanks for all the input guys!

I broke down and bought a used RS7000 for under $500 USD. I'm still shopping for MC-909 bargains and I bought a used KC recently too (I'm too impatient waiting on the TI!). I'll be playing with the software side soon.

[nordlead]

If I were you I wouldnt buy a 909, at least not yet. It takes some time to get to know the rs7000, and you also have a KC. With that alone you should be able to do lots.

[unio mystica]

I would keep the RS-7000. I think It?s easier to use than the MC-909 when you get to know it. And I think their almost the same if you use them only for MIDI-controlling. You loose a lot of money if you sell the RS-7000 and buy a MC-909