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.
While I never investigated it personally, my understanding is that the quantization on the MPC60/3000 series was a big part of the feel. By definition, a quantized sequence is not a sample-accurate reproduction of a live MIDI perfomance.
Also, such idiosyncratic quantization is faithfully simulated in software nowadays, anyway.
Contrarily:
I challenge the notion that it is impossible to model the A/D, any DSP, and the D/A of the MPC3000 in software. While modeling non-linear response dependent on factors such as gains and impedances is not trivial, it is certainly feasible. Much of the pro audio world has moved on to plugins for their ability to reproduce the desirable aspects of analogue hardware while removing the undesirable aspects (such as noise).
A hardware sequencer/drum machine offers things that can't be modeled: tactile feel, low(er than some computers, still to this day) midi latency. Even the limitations such as a slow UI synchronously coupled to slow offline processes (which could be conceivably be modeled) affect the creative process in non-intuitive ways.
Similarly: reel to reel creates a smell that affects the vibe. Limited tape and no undo button affect the creative process as well.
DAW's are great but are essentially unlimited. This opens up horizons, but it does remove musicianship as a requirement in a recording context.
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.
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.
For example is this serious information to you?
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.