Elektron-Users

I have (and love) the Machinedrum, and I think I'd like to add the monomachine to my aresenal as well. Can somebody answer some questions about the workflow in the MnM? How does note input work? I assume you can record in real time...is this well-implemented? Is step-input easy to use? How do you specify note durations in step time? Also, once you have a sequence recorded, is editing easy? How are note pitches and durations displayed? Is there any kind of piano roll display? are pitches edited with knobs? can you change the pitch of an exiting note with external keyboard? any cool sequencing features worth noting?

Also, I am aware that you can play the MnM in polyphonic, monotimbral mode. Is it possible to have one machine with, for example, 4 voices of poly, and two monophonic machines?

Finally, are the synthesis parameter pages similar to that on the MD? i.e. one page for synth params, one for FX/filter, and one for routing? Are there only 8 synth params per machine? Seems kind of limited for full synthesis....

Many thanks to anybody who bothers to answer!

Have you checked out the manual? It answers all this stuff.

As to mixing poly and mono, you can't do that, as far as I know, without an external sequencer.

ggoodwin wrote:
I have (and love) the Machinedrum, and I think I'd like to add the monomachine to my aresenal as well. Can somebody answer some questions about the workflow in the MnM? How does note input work? I assume you can record in real time...is this well-implemented? Is step-input easy to use? How do you specify note durations in step time? Also, once you have a sequence recorded, is editing easy? How are note pitches and durations displayed? Is there any kind of piano roll display? are pitches edited with knobs? can you change the pitch of an exiting note with external keyboard? any cool sequencing features worth noting?

Also, I am aware that you can play the MnM in polyphonic, monotimbral mode. Is it possible to have one machine with, for example, 4 voices of poly, and two monophonic machines?

Finally, are the synthesis parameter pages similar to that on the MD? i.e. one page for synth params, one for FX/filter, and one for routing? Are there only 8 synth params per machine? Seems kind of limited for full synthesis....

Many thanks to anybody who bothers to answer!

Note input works (SFX-60) through 16 step triggers (you can choose what octave you're in), and/or external keyboard. You can do both in real time, step-sequencing, and can edit an individual note after the fact. You can see what particular pitch a note-on trigger is by pressing and holding the particular step trigger. While doing this, you can using the arrow keys of the MNM to alter the pitch. You don't specifiy note lengths in the way in which the MIDI machines on the MD do. Each synth track has evenlope parameters (attack, hold, decay, release) which control note duration. You can, of course, freak the fuck out with parameter locks for total control. In terms of mono vs. poly modes. It's all or nothing--either you have 6 internal mono tracks or 6 tracks polyphonically assigned to one 'machine.' Synthesizer parameters are roughly parallel to the MD's, and, IMO, there are more than enough for a huge pallete of sounds. The individual machines within the synthesis types, coupled with their own parameters, coupled with effects, filter, delay, lfo, etc., provide ample room to diverse sounds.

Is this synth strong/diverse enough to cover all of your needs? I haven't the foggiest. It's plenty for me, and the integrated sequencer fucking rocks! I have a few other synths, but they don't get any love from me. I plan on getting a rompler for bread 'n' butter piano/organ/string stuff, then I'll be pretty well set. A Waldorf would be bitchin' as well, but...

BOTTOM LINE: If you like the MD, you will love the MNM, and probably vice-versa, although I can't speak for those folks.

cchocjr

I'm getting one...now I just have to decide if I should sell my SidStation to finance the MnM, or save up and then have the complete elektron collection thanks for the reply.

Save up, you'll be happier in the long run.

well, as long as we are praising the mono, I will add my 2 cents to balance this thing out. Let it be said that the monomachine rules - its the shit. However, its not a traditional machine at all.

First of all, the midi sequencer is in fact quite limited. For example, the resolution is low (according to Daniel this is the reason) so you have to pick and choose where to put in your note off data. This is not really a problem for me, since with my music its either all stacatto and you can pop the note offs in - or its all legato melodic stuff and the note off does not become a problem.

The other thing I notice is that yes you can edit the shit out of what you are sequencing, but its not as logical as you might wish at first. However, this logical approach would in fact limit the monomachine - you want it to be a little off the beaten path, and this is what makes it a great tool. BUT, if you are looking for a be all end all sequencer like the RM1X or MPC sequencer - forget it, this thing operates by its own rules - a pleasure for some, an inconvenience for others perhaps.

Also, the OS may seem similar to the MD - however, its not the same. I was getting to know my MD pretty well when I added the monomachine - but learning the monomachine took more time to master than the MD.

Lastly, I can not stress enough how unique the filter portion of the mono is. If you are used to resonant lowpass or subtractive type filtering, this is going to take some work to get used to. Its a friggin great filter, but like everything else it has its quirks and can be difficult at first to master.

And Lastly (again) the global effects are a tad different than the MD - you need to use a track to utilize them, which is something that I am not wild about. I prefer the global effects on the MD, cause its more like a traditional mixing desk where you have sends and inserts. The mono has no sends - its buss driven. So, you can not send something to the reverb, you have to buss it through the reverb and then mix the reverb in - and then use a different track/bus for the Dynamix for example. I prefer the signal flow on the MD personally - but then again, perhaps thats because its just slightly more traditional than the monomachine. I'm telling you, the monomachine is not for the meek - you are gonna have to go nuts deep into this thing, and holy shit is it worth it once you get the thing to sing for you. Good luck!

Yeah...it's definitely different from the MD in terms of interface. The overarching structure, however, is pretty comparable. One thing that I really like about the MNM's sequencer is that it is--in a traditional sense--fairly limited. This forces me (can't speak to others) to "buckle the fuck down" and write music instead of getting lost in options and menus, etc. All things considered, the MNM is tight as fuck. If you like the 'Elektron approach' or 'philosophy,' then you'll probably like whatever they put out.

Not trying to be a fanyboy, here, but Elektron is making it pretty damned tough. Believe, I wouldn't take time out of my day to spew my opinions about something that I wasn't pretty passionate about. I'm too lazy/busy to do so otherwise.

The filters are pretty damned tight, but it took me a while to get used to them. To be totally honest, I owned the MD for 6 months to a year before I even knew that it had a resonant combination band-pass filter per track. After a while I got tired ot asking myself what 'HPQ' et al. meanth.

I know, I'm a douche.

cchocjr

no, you are not a douche! You are just preconditioned to use traditional pro-sumer grade crap like the rest of us. I mean, if elektron was trying to sell a million monomachines, they could brag that it has a resonant LPF because people now have some idea what that is.

However, if they say whatever they wish to call the mono's filters, the thing would probably confuse the hoople heads at guitar center and the thing would not sell.

Luckily for us elektron users, we cause give a shit about what sells. We want to make music, and we demand quality. If I wanted something with a ridiculous tube in it and a traditional filter... well, you know the rest.

That said, I personally had to overcome my precondition to use crap. Well, not just crap - but more prosumer grade gear. I hate to call my Virus Indigo into that category - but it almost fits in there. I mean, the filter for example on the Virus is totally traditional - luckily there are 2 filters, so its not complety run of the mill - but the elektron filter can sound like the 2 virus filters with a little knowhow, and at the end of the day I feel great because I know how to go about getting a sound, as opposed to brainlessly tuning a filter cutoff frequency.

Its a priveledge to have the knowlegde that elektron even exists, and to have not one but 2 of their products is truly a blessing for one who wishes to make music without the limitations of what some corporation thinks will make them money - and I think all of the elektron users will agree with me about this. :-D

I hear you guys...Elektron are making the sickest stuff right now...sometimes I almost feel like I'm cheating when I use my SPS-1uw...it just has such a character of its own, but it's so easy to mold it to your creativity. I'm definitely gonna pick up a mono as soon as possible. For what it's worth, I'm not gonna be sequencing anything external with the mnm...I'll do most of the composing with both elektron boxes running in their song modes, and add some VSTs and other sequences with Cubase.

hehe, but to call a virus indigo "prosumer"...umm, I'll take it if ya don't want it no mo....

haha, I knew that was gonna get me into trouble. What I mean is, the Virus as compared to the monomachine seems prosumer, mostly because they went with a more traditional layout. However, the Virus is certainly more capable than a Korg MS2000: the most prosumer synth of all time besides maybe the DX7, but the DX7 was at least somewhat innovative. No, I love the Virus and you cant have it :-D