Elektron-Users

I wish I understood parts at all.

I really don't understand them one bit. I am super gun shy too because I have only messed up my work each time I mess with them so right now I am stuck with essentially one part per bank.

I haven't had the time to dive in and learn the OT because of raising my son, but I am not working on an album and really need to grasp this thing.

I don't know enough to say they are good or bad, but I do agree with the contingent that is frustrated by the OT's dissimilarity with the MD and MnM. I have spent years learning the other 2 and only barely have a handle on all the MnM does... makes learning the OT a bit discouraging.

One thing that would be nice is if the parts were saved when syncing the project or saving a backup. It's just too easy to forget to save a part and then when you reload it.. oops!

Thomas wrote:
The hardware of the ot is fixed. If getting more parts would result in less memory for samples, would it be worth it? For me it wouldn't. I really don't see the problem with how parts are handled.

less sample memory for a few parameters and sample address recall? c´mon...

darenager wrote:
For me the issue with parts is not that there are not enough - its the fact that confining samples to parts means that I can't choose how to use samples/available ram, also the fact that scrolling through 128 samples is not fun, and sample locks are pretty klutzy and not as simple as say using sample chains and slice points, also I think the assigning of samples to tracks is needlessly long winded.:

I really don't get what you dislike about parts. You seem to know how to use sample locking but you prefer sample chains from sliced long samples. Do you dislike the way samples are assigned to slots? This however has nothing to do with the parts. Are you pleased with the sample chains?Then parts is no problem for you regarding sample management since you can have too many samples fitted in a small number of slots(each static slot 64 samples, 64*128=8192 samples!!). What is really really your problem regarding parts? Its a fact that all of us would like one part per pattern, but not for sample management. Different fx,lfo,mixer settings is the quest. Different samples can already be achieved through the (cumbersome as you say-I don't agree) sample locking or through the use of slice locking of different chains. You get to pick what's more convenient for u. And lets hope that these methods will get more userfriendly. But they are already there and they are not a workaround to problem, they are the path that you should follow. Please explain what your problem is regarding parts i am still trying to get it and i am so bored of seeing this coming up again and again.

darenager wrote:
I'd quite happily be limited to 1x 128 samples in ram at a time as long as I can assign them how I see fit, I mean really has anyone used or felt the need to use 4 banks of 128 samples in the machine at a time - if the answer to that is yes then I think maybe you need to realise that the OT is a powerhouse at changing samples beyond recognition and even with 128 samples in memory it would easy be possible to do a night long set no problem, and using sample chains can of course give even more timbral possibilities.:

4 banks of 128 samples???What do you mean by samples?Slots??No there are not 512 slots available inside OT. Just 256 slots. this is what you get by using parts: access to slots which are loaded with a sample. Do you mean that any time you change part there should be loaded different samples inside ram. No f... way anybody would want this. Uneccessary delays!I don't know you are talking about i am just speculating. The numbers you are presenting are completely wrong or they are reffering to a a non existent machine state. For the record as I wrote before sample chains can hold 8192 samples limited only by the size of the compact flash.

darenager wrote:
And I'm getting tired of people misunderstanding why other users don't like the 'part' concept, no-one is saying it is hard to use or we don't understand it, so you can get of your high horses thinking you have some 'elite jedi powers' because it doesn't bother you Put simply some facets of the OT's operation are not as good as they could be, and it seems that the more experienced guys are the ones who are in agreement about some of these issues. In short it would be adding to the OT's power rather than detracting from it if some of these interface tweaks were implemented.

I wish people were this vocal when the chorus was nerfed

And really I am not misunderstanding you, I am just trying to understand what you are saying because I can't digest any arguments against parts from your post. Please kindly explain.

KRAFTF

I find it quicker to use slice locks than sample locks, in my case usually shortish chains of 16-64 samples, hold step button turn encoder to what slice, done! vs sample lock, hold step button press up or down to enter list of samples, scroll using buttons to sample desired, press enter. Simply put it is a speed of turning the encoder or pressing a bunch of buttons, I guess personal preference is my point.

I don't have a problem with parts per se, but rather how they currently force a way of working, I don't need or want access to 128 slots on each pattern, I'd be content with parts being more akin to kits, just like any other sampler or drum machine - I can't see any specific advantage to the way parts are set up, but I can see disadvantages - like scrolling thru a long list to find a particular sample, having to think carefully before changing a slot assignment etc.

Regarding your last question, I never use more than 1 part because I don't like the way they work for reasons already mentioned, so my machine is only holding a handful of patterns at a time, so therefore I never switch parts. The way I understand it is there is around 80mb of ram available, all I want is the ability to be able to use that 80mb how I want.

EDIT - Yep I got my numbers mixed up I meant 4 parts drawing on 128 static or 128 flex samples/slots, not banks!

I used to get frustrated with the machinedrum because for 128 patterns you only had 64 kits, so actually you don't get one kit per pattern, you get one kit for every 2 patterns.

At the moment the OT offers the equivalent of 4 patterns per part, but each part also offers 16 scenes, which give a large amount of flexibility, as well as being able to p-lock different samples from the sample library, p-lock pattern data & utilise sample chains.

Even though you get half the kits/parts of the MD, I still reckon there is more flexibility in the OT. It would be perfect if the OT could gain 8 parts per bank, matching it up with the ratio of kits/patterns in the Machinedrum, but I would be surprised if it ever happened, as at that point I would want the number of sample slots in both flex & static to increase also.

EDIT: Hey Darenger maybe you know this but the quick way to scroll through the sample bank/s is via the 'LEVEL' knob.

Guys, i'm new here but i'm out already. This thread & all the OT speil & complexity has left me drained before i've even bought the thing. At least i can move on & buy something different. But good luck to all you brave & intrepid OT explorers.

AikiGhost wrote:
lostinthemanual wrote:
does anybody here needs more than 64 pattern per project in real use ?

Some people see the project = live set/album. Rather than project = song. So yes some people do want more than 64 patterns per project.

Me = Yes.

Project = Live Set

Absolutely NOT this. It would be so much worse to give up the dynamic flexibility of parts assignment.

Locking parts to a pattern would be much, much worse than it is now. I wouldn't protest more parts per bank, but I think you're missing something fundamental about the flexibility here, if you only ever want to make each pattern completely different from the others.
It's just a matter of getting used to it, there is a threshold that needs to be crossed, it'll click, and you'll say "OH HAHA I GET IT." Or not. Maybe not.

Elektron were smart in how they set it up. We're all just catching up

What I never seem to read are some real-world examples of how this "majestical dynamic flexibility" is actually useful and not a hindrance. I am a big fan of doing exercises on my equipment when someone suggests something cool to try, but alas, not this.

It's also important to remember that each person works in their own certain way. What most of us are asking is the OPTION or CHOICE of how Parts and other pieces are allocated or used. They implemented the Personalize feature, so they should continue to use it, no?

Ozone wrote:

EDIT: Hey Darenger maybe you know this but the quick way to scroll through the sample bank/s is via the 'LEVEL' knob.

Yeah, thanks but my point is using a chain for example 16 snares, then assigning that to a track its nice and quick to plock any of those 16 snares on any step. Contrast this with using sample locks, first of all I have to make sure that my 16 snares are in succession in the list, then I ideally would want that list near the lower numbered slots, result I have used 16 slots compared to just one. I know I could just have the chain in one of the slots and then have further flexibility by having another chain in another slot available for locking, but if I wanted to do that I could do it the first way too, but rarely would I need to do that.