The Akai S3000 and S3000XL samplers, iconic fixtures in the music production landscape of the 1990s, revolutionized the way musicians and producers approached sampling and sound design. Renowned for their robust build, intuitive interface, and unparalleled sound quality, these samplers became staples in studios worldwide. The S3000, introduced in the early 90s, quickly garnered acclaim for its versatility and expansive feature set. The subsequent release of the S3000XL built on this foundation, offering enhanced functionality and greater ease of use. Together, these models not only defined an era of digital sampling but also influenced a generation of artists, shaping the sounds of genres ranging from hip-hop to electronic music.
Simple Test
However, despite their shared legacy, various myths have emerged online, with debates over whether one model is superior to the other in terms of playback sound quality. To address these claims, the most straightforward approach is to conduct direct comparisons. Audio enthusiast Tech44 from the Gearspace forum undertook this task, leveraging his high-level expertise and high-quality audio equipment to ensure accurate results. Tech44’s method was meticulous: instead of merely playing loops through each sampler, he loaded individual samples into both the S3000 and S3000XL and then sequenced them back via MIDI. This approach provided a real-world application scenario, allowing for a true comparison of their performance and sound reproduction capabilities. This article delves into the history, features, and lasting impact of the Akai S3000 and S3000XL, and presents Tech44’s findings to determine if there is a definitive answer to the debate over which sampler truly reigns supreme. A simple A vs B test was created from his recordings by splicing the two samplers back to back. For those curious or who want to analyze the data themselves here is an audio recording of one sampler followed by the other:
S3000 vs S3000XL.wav (24bit, 44kHz audio file in uncompressed wav format)
On the Gearspace forum in “All Akai’s are sexy thread” we posted this audio file above. There people were required to tell which part of the recording is S3000 and which is S3000XL. Out of 750 downloads a total of 0 correct answers were given. Let that sink in. 
At this point we could simply end the article, because regardless of your listening environment I think it is clear you will be unable to tell which is which. However, let’s dig a little bit deeper, since we want the final truth.
Advanced Analytics
“But wait, they must sound different I’ve read it on the internet…”. Alright, folks. Since on the Gearspace forum we already determined that us humans can’t tell the difference between the S3000 and the S3000XL as nobody was able to pinpoint exactly which sampler was at certain point of the recording. Time to call in the big guns: computers! Inspired by someone’s astute observation that the S3000XL sounds like it was made out of Legos (it sounds plastic), I present to you our thrilling new saga.
Finding the plastic: Volume 1 The Quest Begins
First stop: the low end! If I were plastic, that’s where I’d hide in between 20-350 Hz. Let’s compare the S3000XL on the left and the S3000 on the right. Click the image for full size. Hmmm… the spectrograms look identical. Well, that’s a bummer.
Wait! If it sounds plastic, it must be in the highs. Let’s crank it up to -120dB, and go to high frequency, and I mean extremely high in 17000-22000 Hz where only dogs and bats dare to listen. Click the image for full size. Aaand… nothing. Spectrograms still look the same. S3000XL on the left and the S3000 on the right.
You know what. Now when I think of the plastic and frequencies involved in the sound. Of course, plastic would be in the midrange. How did I miss that? Let’s check it out. Left: S3000XL, right: S3000. But no, they look identical in the 1-5kHz range.
Finding the plastic: Volume 2 The Plot Thickens
And then it hit me, like in that movie, “The Usual Suspects.” When you can’t find the tiny details, zoom out and look at the big picture! So, let’s zoom out and search for plastic artifacts. Nope. Spectrograms are still twinsies. Left: S3000XL, right: S3000.
Hey plastic! Where are you hiding?
Just as I was about to throw in the towel, a lightbulb moment! If it’s not in the signal and in the things we hear, then it must be hiding deep in the noise. Right! Let’s amplify the range a gazillion times and inspect the background noise. Aha! The plastic has to be there. Somewhere! Elsewhere? Nowhere! Left: S3000XL, right: S3000. Spoiler alert: still nada.
The verdict
Despite rigorous tests showing no difference in sound between the Akai S3000 and S3000XL samplers, many users continue to believe that one sounds better than the other. This phenomenon can be attributed to cognitive bias, specifically confirmation bias and the placebo effect.
This occurs when people favor information that confirms their preexisting beliefs or values. If a user believes that older equipment, such as the S3000, must sound better due to its higher original cost or its vintage status, they are likely to interpret their listening experiences in a way that supports this belief. They might ignore or downplay evidence that contradicts their preconceived notions, such as blind tests showing no discernible difference in sound quality. And this takes a LOT of effort especially once the evidence starts pouring in.
When we say rigorous tests, we mean EXTREME rigorous in 24 bit domain which offers 140 dB of headroom for analytics where human ear is not even capable(!) to analyse anything to begin with. This is why he have computers. And they say: no difference whatsoever. And it makes sense as we will touch this subject in the chapters below as they are crucial in understanding the whole picture. One thing to remember from all of this:
Do not believe the myths coming from random nobodies on the internet. Instead, prioritize relying on empirically supported data that is open to personal analysis. Should you lack the necessary expertise to conduct such analysis, it remains prudent to refer to authoritative sources. This particular article presents the results of rigorous testing and includes access to the raw 24-bit data, enabling independent verification and analysis. This article was not written for those individuals with cognitive bias because they already made their mind and any attempt into changing it is a waste of time. The more evidence you present them, the more faster they change the goal posts. Instead of ending the article here, and especially if you are interested in buying any of these units, or it was in fact the reason you visited this article at the first place, we will include a few chapters that could help your decision and even include a few FX and resonant filter demos.
So, which model is for you?
One important consideration is RAM. If you plan to upgrade S3000 expect to pay $150 (May 2024) for 8 MB expansion. If you plan to upgrade S3000XL, expect to pay $15 for 16 MB expansion. This extreme difference (1:10 ratio) is due to the fact that S3000 uses proprietary RAM while S3000XL uses 72 pin SIMM which is cheap as the postage cost itself.
It should be noted that the S3000 comes with a built-in effects processor, while the S3000XL does not. Instead it requires an additional effects card, the EB16FX, which has become increasingly difficult to find these days. The S3000’s onboard effects include Echo, Chorus, and Pitch Shift. In contrast, the EB16FX board for the S3000XL offers a more extensive array of effects: Echo, Chorus, Reverb, Pitch Shift, Distortion, EQ, Ring Modulation, Flange, and Phaser. This means that an S3000XL equipped with the EB16FX board provides a much larger palette of effects. So if you are after a known artist for whom you know used S3000 and its internal FX, then go with the S3000. If you just want that S3000 sound for basic playback, then it doesn’t matter, you can pick either of the two. If you have EB16FX board in your MPC and looking to add a hardware sampler, then S3000XL would definitely be a better choice.
Not only does the EB16FX board expand the variety of available effects, but it also enhances the flexibility of their application. The EB16FX features two parallel multi effects blocks, each capable of handling any of the effects, plus two additional effects blocks dedicated to reverb. This configuration allows for a total of four parallel effects blocks, offering a significant advantage in terms of creative possibilities.
While this article does not delve into a comparison of the quality of these effects or the differences between the S3000 and S3000XL in this regard, we acknowledge that this is an area of interest for many users. For those curious about the sound of the EB16FX board, we will provide demo recordings in the addendum. These demos aim to showcase the capabilities of the EB16FX board, offering listeners a chance to hear the effects in action and form their own opinions.
Moore’s Law
There is a common concept that older equipment inherently sounds “better”, maybe it does, but when comparing the Akai S3000 and S3000XL samplers this is a flawed starting point. Because both models featured absolute state-of-the-art converters at the time of their release, representing the pinnacle of audio technology. Converter is not just one single IC but the entire circuitry dedicated for recreating digital signal in analogue domain. It is unfortunate that people focus on a single chip, rather than entire board that is delivering the actual waveform.
When the S3000i was introduced, it came with an internal drive and maximum memory capacity, and it could cost close to $10,000 with all expansions —a staggering price that reflected its cutting-edge capabilities and premium components. The period when these samplers were released was marked by significant breakthroughs in semiconductor technology, with Moore’s Law driving rapid advancements. This meant that just a few years later, the S3000XL was introduced at a much more affordable price point. The key difference was not in sound quality but in technological advancements and cost efficiencies. Unlike the S3000, the S3000XL no longer required expensive proprietary Akai memory. Instead, it used more affordable 72-pin SIMMs, which had become widely available and inexpensive due to the booming computer market.
Additionally, the S3000XL benefited from more powerful CPU resources, offering better performance for a fraction of the cost of the S3000. This drastic reduction in price, due to cheaper memory and improved semiconductor technology, often leads to confusion when people compare the original release prices of these two models. It’s important to note that despite the lower cost, the S3000XL was still a significant investment, unaffordable for an average school kid at the time.
Understanding this context is crucial for appreciating why the S3000XL could be sold at a lower price without compromising on quality. The advancements in technology allowed for more efficient production and reduced costs, making high-quality sampling more accessible to a broader range of users.
The history
When the Akai S3000 was released, it represented the ultimate goal for every serious music producer. Owning an S3000 signaled that you had truly “made it” in the industry. Its cutting-edge technology and superior sound quality set it apart from competitors, making it a coveted piece of equipment. Producers with an S3000 knew they had a significant advantage over those still using older models like the Roland W30, Akai S950, Roland S-550, or even the Akai S1000. There was simply no comparison to the superiority of the S3000 when considering the context of that era. Among other things it finally gave the Akai S series a resonant filter and we will actually demonstrate some of it on the later S3000XL model in the demos below (in the addendum of the article).
The prestige of the S3000 was such that people would go to great lengths to acquire one, including taking out loans. This sampler was more than just a piece of equipment; it was a serious investment in one’s music career. Owning an S3000 meant you were a serious player in the game, with tools that could outperform nearly anything else available at the time. Its powerful features and unparalleled capabilities made it indispensable for professional music production, and having one in your studio was a clear indication of your commitment to quality and innovation in music creation. A few years later it was replaced by S3000XL with the same impressive specs. First units of S3000XL were assembled in Japan, while the later were assembled in China. They all feature exact the same internal boards that were made in Japan. In the two images below we can see the inside of the unit that was assembled in Japan and below it the inside of the unit that was assembled in China. They both contain the same PCB’s which say made in Japan.
S3000XL assembled in Japan
S3000XL assembled in China (click to zoom)
ADDENDUM:
Akai EB16FX board – the demos with S3000XL
First a small disclaimer. Don’t let it fool you, but EB16FX can be a bit frustrating at times, since all of the effects are routed through the main output. Also while containing some very useful effects, you will find yourself using it at only 50% of its potential. Because the board is split into 4 effects groups that run all the time in parallel. So if you use effect A it will take the whole headroom and you are forced to mix it internally with effect B. As a result you start using only effect A, because both effects at once can turn into mud, while all 4 effects can create a lot of mess. With that being said it is possible to use them all at once. But in most situations the half of DSP chip will be twiddling thumbs – doing nothing.
In my opinion, what they should have done was to use ALL of the DSP power and gave us one multi effect plus one reverb. As a result the board would have twice more fidelity, more quality, dynamic range, bandwidth etc. If it only had one proper effect rather than 4 at a time and employ full DSP power for that effect, it would be excellent addition. Because algorithms are quite good. There is: distortion, EQ, ring mod, chorus, flange, phaser, pitch shift, pan mod, delay and reverb.
The board can look absurd at times, because in effects A and B you already have reverb option, while C and D are reverbs only. So you end up having a possible scenario where you were supposed to Mix 4 different reverbs, all internally in digital domain and all streaming that through one set of stereo outs. This is an early 90’s 16 bit device, and not your DAW where you can mix things with near infinite bit depth. But it is what it is. Let’s hear some of the effects in a few demos. Sorry these were made under 5 minutes, so don’t expect some hit music in here and pardon the mp3 audio quality. Sources of the four demos below: All internal synthesis (internal waveforms only), no external samples used (except for drums). Internal effects only (EB16 effects board).
Analogue Pad – demonstration of a wide EB16 chorus.
Ring Modulator Arpeggio – excellent ring modulator for Techno!
Bass and Arpeggio – demonstration of envelopes and resonant filter performance.
Saw Line Flanged/Delay – another one, but with cool flanged delay.
Extreme low (filter test):
Filter open/close – loop processing. I hope you have either large speakers or good headphones that go well below 30Hz. This is extreme low end, particularly towards the end of recording, yet full of power, earth shaking. Absolutely fantastic sounding filter. Hint: try this on other samplers. Only a few can do this kind of low end!
Well that kinda wraps it all up. I hope that you enjoyed the article. If you would like to add some extra infos that you think would be beneficial for the article feel free to comment below, we will gladly share it with the rest of the world! Or if you just want to share your anecdote, again feel free to comment!
