Elektron-Users

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

I certainly share parts between patterns quite a lot. So the current workflow actually works really nice for me.

Solving this "issue" by lowering the amounts of patterns in a project from 256 to 64 will definitely make a lot of other users quite upset instead (including me).

The simplest solution should be to make all 64 parts in a project accessible from all banks. That at least wouldn't break the current workflow... except for adding more cumbersome menu diving when selecting parts i guess... not sure if i would like that actually...

If you think of Tracks as Musicians in a Band, and Parts as the Instruments they play during a song, and Patterns as the notes/performance they give, then having your Musicians switch Instruments 4 times during that particular Song's performance should be enough, no?

However, I'm also used to one pattern/one kit from MnM/MD. I can see that the Parts thing causes frustration.

I think the real problem is not the "limitation" of 4 tracks, but rather that it's too easy to wipe out a Part if you're not careful!

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'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.

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

AikiGhost wrote:
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.

I'm not wrong, it's just that you don't like it.
What you're suggesting is completely rewriting the way the OT works. Not only the code that goes into patterns & parts, but the UI. As Kirlian says, PARTS is printed right on the surface of the machine. Parts are not going away. And I stand by the idea that they are a smart way to work.

Anselmi: "why change a trusted design that they featured so well in their previous gear?"
Because this is a completely different piece of kit. It's far more advanced. Admittedly it's got a stiffer learning curve. But it actually works quite well how it is.

As far as I'm concerned, and I think many agree, the only thing that could be improved would be if there were more parts (1 per pattern if desired). We still don't know if OT memory would support this, and it does seem like that could likely take away from available memory alloted to flex sample slots.

I suggest getting used to parts, because they aren't going away.
It's been said again and again, but here we go. If you want a different part for each pattern you use, only make 4 patterns per bank. Work within the current limitations of the structure, and find how to exploit them. You're not going to get much done if you can't accept this. The argument for more parts is valid, certainly, but trying to switch to "kits" or locking parts to patterns simply is not. There's a lot more going on with the idea behind kits than what some people are grasping so far. They are not "retarded," you simply don't understand them. Not you, Darenager, but certainly some people.

darenager wrote:


I wish people were this vocal when the chorus was nerfed

We have learnt from that experience!

poonti wrote:


I think the real problem is not the "limitation" of 4 tracks, but rather that it's too easy to wipe out a Part if you're not careful!

This!
I can live with the concept as is. But from time to time I screw something up because of it. There is like a tiny but constant fear when creating new patterns...

Some good points raised - Parts going away is pretty unlikely that is for sure, but do they need to go away really? I think the point is that the implementation could be improved - for example within the realistic confines of available ram and file designations why not allow the user to choose how many samples to a part, and how many parts to load in memory dependant upon the users needs (again, within reasonable hardware/software limits)

So some might like to stick with the current scheme of 4 parts each with 128 samples, someone else might like to have 16 parts each with 32 samples etc.

Reading back on my earlier post I come across as a bit grumpy, whilst it is true that I am a grumpy old git, I still love my OT And you guys

Thomas wrote:
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.

That is only true if you:

A: Use a lot of very long samples
B: Never use static machines for anything

In any case its not the parts that take away the ram its the extra samples you load so this same issue can also occur with the octatrack as it is now.

Anyway we're now talking at crossed purposes you're taking about physical limitations and Im talking about interface design.

MrSysex wrote:

I'm not wrong, it's just that you don't like it.
What you're suggesting is completely rewriting the way the OT works. Not only the code that goes into patterns & parts, but the UI. As Kirlian says, PARTS is printed right on the surface of the machine. Parts are not going away. And I stand by the idea that they are a smart way to work.


I actually really hate it, I think its a terrible design decision and severely retards the ease of use and general speed of composition with the octatrack. The parts label being printed on the case doesn't mean you cant just have 16 of them 1 per pattern.


There's a lot more going on with the idea behind kits than what some people are grasping so far. They are not "retarded," you simply don't understand them.

Well if that's the case elektron have done an absolutely abysmal job of explaining what they are supposed to be for and also of explaining to people before the buy an octa that it works in this odd, extremely annoying and "not like our other gear" way.

But I'm sure that as with all elektron gear all this confusion, annoyance and questioning by new users is all by "design".

There is some good info in here. Thanks. I could probably have benefitted more from this thread being titled "OT parts workflow discussion", but there is some very valid discussion here nonetheless . I realize I have brought up a sore point. I haven't been keeping up with the OT threads from this year and my search results didn't quite answer my questions. It's pretty cool to know that elektron is the kind of company that will address the legitimate concerns of its product's users. Since this seems to be a volitile topic, I'll be interested to see if and how elektron addresses it.