Elektron-Users

I guess Octatrack and Machinedrum are different machines designed to do different things

dataline wrote:
I guess Octatrack and Machinedrum are different machines designed to do different things

Familiarity of interface between products is a good thing. I think this is something that elektron got wrong with the octa. I like pretty much everything else but to my mind not having a sample setup per pattern is a big oversight and only serves to reduce the octatracks ease of use and general flexibility.

If anything you should be able to save an infinite number of kits (8 tracks with samples, parameter settings, fx settings and scenes) per project and assign them to patterns as you see fit. Now that would be a real step forward.

There is already enough parts per project as is, but users seem to rarely need/want to use all 16 banks in a project.. Why? Dunno. Ideally, most users would like 16 available by default in a single bank - per pattern. I'm guessing this is mainly down to ease of use pattern chaining on the fly because otherwise you would think 4 per bank over 16 banks would suffice.

AikiGhost wrote:
Personally I will never need to take a pattern I have already got and play it with another "part". I wrote the pattern for the samples it uses. If I wanted the same pattern with new samples Id copy the pattern to anew one and assign new samples. Essentially the parts idea is a restriction and not an advantage

yep, I feel it the same way...the "parts" approach make me go painfully slow and kinda lost track of what I´m doing because of the fear of ruin other patterns

I don´t have this feelings with the other elektron gear or even my korg ESX...there´s a layout and operation sense that is intuitive and make you to concentrate in the music instead of the technical and operative stuff

If Elektron made the Ot with dedicated part per pattern, and just made it possible to have 64 part/patterns, people would complain about that too. The way i see it is that i get "free patterns" compared to the mnm or md. I know i would be annoyed if i had to use up one part, just because i wanted a small break, or fade in.

It seems that its easier to complain about what it doesnt do, than to just learn how to do what you want. I still remember when i got my first synth. Back then i had to learn how to use it. Instead of complaining about how I want it to perform. Elektron cant win here. If they change something to please some users, other users will complain.

AikiGhost wrote:
Justin Valer wrote:
Parts in the Octratrack were not designed to be used like Kits. Parts are in essence a Live Performance Workspace Configuration. I feel, future O/S updates will emphasise this distinction.

Really bad design decision, it in actuality compromises ease of use and serves to annoy their MD user base in my opinion.

If they must have "parts" there should be 16 per bank not 4 and there should be a setting to "lock banks to patterns".

I would shut up about parts forever if they did exactly this!

EDIT: Lock PARTS to patterns - samples per pattern...yes.

Thomas wrote:
If Elektron made the Ot with dedicated part per pattern, and just made it possible to have 64 part/patterns, people would complain about that too.

I wouldn't since it would actually be operating as expected.

It seems that its easier to complain about what it doesnt do, than to just learn how to do what you want.

Or you could do both like I am. How can 4 parts per bank be better than 16? I want a bank per pattern and savable assignable banks/kits.

I'd like parts to behave just like kits do in the MD but they don't stress me out the way the work. Just not sure what it adds having them this way rather just a list of parts(kits) that you can assign to any pattern.

ipassenger wrote:
I'd like parts to behave just like kits do in the MD but they don't stress me out the way the work. Just not sure what it adds having them this way rather just a list of parts(kits) that you can assign to any pattern.

+1. My (and many others) feelings exactly.

Thomas wrote:
If Elektron made the Ot with dedicated part per pattern, and just made it possible to have 64 part/patterns, people would complain about that too. The way i see it is that i get "free patterns" compared to the mnm or md. I know i would be annoyed if i had to use up one part, just because i wanted a small break, or fade in.

It seems that its easier to complain about what it doesnt do, than to just learn how to do what you want. I still remember when i got my first synth. Back then i had to learn how to use it. Instead of complaining about how I want it to perform. Elektron cant win here. If they change something to please some users, other users will complain.

^Yes. this!

electrolegs wrote:
There is already enough parts per project as is, but users seem to rarely need/want to use all 16 banks in a project.. Why? Dunno. Ideally, most users would like 16 available by default in a single bank - per pattern. I'm guessing this is mainly down to ease of use pattern chaining on the fly because otherwise you would think 4 per bank over 16 banks would suffice.

^And this!

exuviae wrote:

EDIT: Lock PARTS to patterns - samples per pattern...yes.

^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.