Elektron-Users

MrSysex wrote:

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.

You couldnt be more wrong. Lock parts to patterns, but allow reassignment of any "kit" to any pattern/part is how it should work. How its set up now is retarded.

If you want the same pattern with different samples just copy pattern to a new slot and assign a new kit. This would make massively more sense than what we have now.

Thomas wrote:
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.

Call me a relentless optimist, but I feel the same. It was quite intuitive (for me at least) from the outset to to say I've got four patterns per part...to say to myself, OK, I've got a new pattern here, I can compose up to four variations on it. It means I can compose fills and fades, as Thomas mentions. Or create a 16-bar loop with pattern chain, for example, and only dedicate one "kit" (part) to doing it.

Since I frequently write loops that are longer than 4 bars, it works for me. But I appreciate that it doesn't fit some people's musical needs/wants.

FWIW, I still feel like there's too much to learn here generally to get strung out about it. Guitar, saxophone and MD all have their limitations as well, but I remember feeling the same way about each of them: Focus on what's possible, and spend the time trying to get good at that. If the parts-per-project limitation is the biggest issue I have to cope with, I'll count myself satisfied.

64 parts is enough, thats good.
How they are managed is not cool.

Not shure if elektron is restricted by some reasons to handle the parts as is now within 16 banks with 4parts.
having a part per pattern but only 64 parts in total would mean we would just have 4 banks and would loose on total amount of possible patterns. Not shure what i would prefer:
the 4 banks with 1 part for each pattern or how it is now.
Guess i'd take the part per pattern.

does anybody here needs more than 64 pattern per project in real use ?

too much people feel that the actual parts approach is not the best way to manage the sample kit for a pattern

of course there´s walkarounds, as usual, but why change a trusted design that they featured so well in their previous gear?

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.

anselmi wrote:
too much people feel that the actual parts approach is not the best way to manage the sample kit for a pattern

of course there´s walkarounds, as usual, but why change a trusted design that they featured so well in their previous gear?

The problem is that it's mostly the people who don't like it that post their issues. Those of us who are happy with the current functions don't feel the need to make threads about it.

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.

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.

How can adding the option to have more parts take away from sample memory? That doesn't even make any sense.

dubathonic wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Focus on what's possible, and spend the time trying to get good at that.





Of course the OT has limitations, and the biggest one is the Parts at the moment I guess. I did not like this idea at first of this but after spending time with the OT and making more stuff with it, I got used to it and 4 parts per Bank works for me now. Been able to trig different samples on tracks seems to sort out this limitation for me.

But yea, if we had different Parts/Kits for each pattern it would be nice, but as we all know it, Elektron likes to give limitations

AikiGhost wrote:
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.

How can adding the option to have more parts take away from sample memory? That doesn't even make any sense.

Every pattern/part is loaded into the ram, so it would require some memory. So since more parts would use more of the ram, You have to give up something.

glad to see all the input.

i haven't found that parts limit me- yet. i'm not doing the math or worried about changing something that seems very conscious on the part of elektron. i can see the value of having a big list of kits to assign to any pattern, but i don't think that having 4 parts per bank constitutes a fundamental limitation in interface or music making, or a major setback in useability. it's just a different concept. i've used the MD and MnM for 3 years and felt very comfortable getting around the OT almost immediately even with the addition of parts. i do think that the parts concept's flexibility can be more appreciated when thinking improvisationally than when thinking about tracking.

i doubt parts will be eliminated from the OT. it says parts right on it. maybe adding more would appease the dislike some feel? maybe making them non-local or not attached to banks? talking about getting rid of them is kinda goofy.