Elektron-Users

Mutes & Solos are my favorite live features on mixers/sequencers and although i've begun to understand why Elektron chose to implement them on a audio level rather then on sequencer level like on the MD/MnM (in case you use long loops) i still find it would be nice to have the option in personalize menu to select behavior and at the very least have the option of a post-mute fx behavior so the fx tails don't cut off when muted/solod..

bauer wrote:
prplx wrote:

. "Single Out Setup" -> MAIN OUT + CUE OUT -> 4x MONO out (per track routing)


+ 1, or at least seperate levels for the 2 cue out put channels
+1 this one grew on me. Would be great to have 2 mono effect sends.

I get the Octa's everything-is-stereo philosophy, but sometimes 2 mono > 1 stereo.

xanax wrote:
i still find it would be nice to have the option in personalize menu to select behavior and at the very least have the option of a post-mute fx behavior so the fx tails don't cut off when muted/solod..

+1 on this too. It feels awkward that switching patterns lets the effect tails ring out, but muting tracks doesn't. I think this should be a per-pattern/per-bank/per-project behavior. Something like mute controls volume (pre-fx) vs. mute controls level (post-fx).

This one may have been mentioned.
Track linking: sort of like the neighbor but for sample trigs instead of effects. The trigs and pattern length are shared with the previous track, so it's easy to add/remove them.

The track has its own parameter settings and locks, of course, but some are relative - pitch, at least, but probably not sample or slice - rather than absolute. This makes creating chords really easy - you just set a pitch offset parameter. This also lets you layer samples without having to resample, and also do so in way that allows more movement via LFOs, locks, etc.

Routing could be selected on a per-track basis, with the linked tracks either going through the same effects chain or each through their own. This way you can have e.g. a "click" that gets reverb with a "body" sample that goes through chorus, etc.

I realize you can work around this by copy+pasting tracks but it does get awkward with complex patterns. Also this would somewhat make up for the lack of polyphony & chord functionality without changing the architecture.

I think elektron should put everything else on hold until they implement some kind of smooth timestretch algorithm, all I've heard so far sound like shitty 90's stretchers with just two alternating grains, give me at least 8!

Another thing, saying it's a machine for "radical" sample manipulation is ridiculous when it doesn't even cover the territory of OLD reaktor ensembles.

Why elektron hasn't implemented a granular machine yet really mystifies me, I do dsp (hardware), assembler and fpga programming, I emailed them and said, if I bought a octatrack, if I could buy or borrow a dev kit and get to implement a granular machine for free, they weren't interested...

Get that? They don't want to make a granular machine. Good luck at getting my money. The whole thing feels so retarded

force to scale on the comb filter, set in the sub menu.

Veqtor wrote:
Why elektron hasn't implemented a granular machine yet really mystifies me, I do dsp (hardware), assembler and fpga programming, I emailed them and said, if I bought a octatrack, if I could buy or borrow a dev kit and get to implement a granular machine for free, they weren't interested...

Get that? They don't want to make a granular machine. Good luck at getting my money. The whole thing feels so retarded

I dont see how this means they dont want to make a granular machine? Or did they specifically tell you so? To me it just indicates that they dont want to handle OT development as an open source project... which i totally would understand.

I too understand that they don't want to open source the code etc, but given how vanilla their dsp sounds I don't think they should worry about letting someone sign an NDA, have a go at making some features that they can then chose to keep or throw away without spending any money at all.

I asked previously also, about granular timestretch with grain size control, amongst other things and they replied that "for now we have no plans to implement such a feature"

I just find it so weird, all the codebase to implement it must be already there, it seems to me that it is some kind of "make-it-easier-not-to-fail" design choice, to somehow protect us from the dangers of making timestretch artifact porn.

but imagine that you're doing a liveset and some guy comes up and asks if he can do a few tricks with the crossfader to enhance your set... you'd say no ;P

i do hope the existing timestrech gets improved soon, though - it would be nice to be able to move more than 1 or 2 BPMs from teh orignal tempo without things sound really bad (which they currently do, especially lower frequencies...)

bauer wrote:
but imagine that you're doing a liveset and some guy comes up and asks if he can do a few tricks with the crossfader to enhance your set... you'd say no ;P

i do hope the existing timestrech gets improved soon, though - it would be nice to be able to move more than 1 or 2 BPMs from teh orignal tempo without things sound really bad (which they currently do, especially lower frequencies...)

In order to improve the time-stretching it would most likely take more dsp away from other processes. I think the OT is maxed out.