comparison of groove boxes

Oh yes he didn't

 

maybe you guys didnt quite understand me, what i meant was that maschine is no groovebox but a controller for the software that comes along with it, right? whereas you can use a groovebox without any laptop and such, so that it also seems to me a bit strange to argue for maschine´s sound quality since that in the end depends on the soundcard you´re using? correct me if im wrong..

 

the sound quality is not at discussion here.... and even so it doesn't matter. the only difference between a stand alone box and maschine is that maschine has 2 boxes (your lappy and the controller, one houses the cpu one houses the controller) where as an mc 909 the cpu is inside the controller... not a significant difference if you really think about it.
but point is this. if you use maschine... it works very similar to a standard groovebox. (hell half the time I leave my laptop screen closed.)
yes it is a sampling beast but so is an mc909 but I would suggest not even replying to this thread. go use maschine. then go use something like the mc-808, electribe etc. and you will see. this thread is tainted lol....
tainted I tell you tainted....

 

Well as u can see below the soundquality has been mentioned that´s why I said it, and that afterall depends on the soundcard you´re using with it.

bottom line the MASCHINE is no groovebox but a controller, sure in combination w/ the software it might be almost the same but anyhow technically the comparison is a bit odd. I by the way own the MC-909 & afterall that I don´t really use it anymore because i was fed up with the limitations it has compared to software (16MB of built in Sample-space is a joke), so that I guess the step to combine a groovebox layout with the software is just the logical next step in groovebox evolution theory.. conclusion: nevermind.

It would be interesting to think about a combination of the maschine software and the mc-909 as a controller.. would end up in a horrbile lot of mapping issues but well, guess that´s another story anyways.

 

Nope you can render internally to wav and then you will see how good maschine sounds regardless of the soundcards quality.

Besides if you're doing music and are willing to shell out 500 on maschine what are you doing with anything other than a good soundcard?

Anyway Ive worked with standalone grooveboxes and maschine kills them all stone dead.

 

Ah, no- not really.

Even the cheapest soundcard/built in audio is flat beyond the limits of human hearing, and THD/IMD is non-existent. The S/N's way below the professional DACs of 20 years ago. The real differences for the most part these days are how the drivers handle low latency situations, and multiple ins/outs and preamps for the inputs. ASIO4All's a good comprimise for a Windows box, and using the core audio drivers on a Mac works well, too.

If you're doing all of your sampling internally (not sampling the inputs of your interface), and you can deal with a stereo pair, I'll bet 95% of the people out there (and 99%+ of your audience) won't hear a difference if you A/B'd onboard sound vs the high end interface of your choice.

ew

 

does this mean that for those that work exclusively in the box and just render tracks out an audiointerface is irrelevant? i must be misunderstanding something.

 

Yeah- it is. If you're completely ITB and render, the only thing you use the interface for is monitoring.
Digital music is 1s and 0s- can you say with a straight face that your 1s and 0s are better than mine? No.

ew

 

thank you very much for this information.

 

Calling Maschine "a controller for the software that comes along with it" is more of an insult than calling it a groovebox.

 

Why, oh why has this thread been resurrected? :S

 

Tainted! Tainted I tell u! Besides we have already established the fact that maschine sleeps next to stone henge with mad amounts of sandwiches! What more do u want?