Elektron-Users

coldfuture wrote:

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.

Just an idea - you might try making a project called PartExperiments or something of that sort. Go ahead and find things out. Mess things up, on purpose. Make four parts: Techno, House, Ambient, Punk ... or Red, Green, Blue, Purple or whatever you feel like. Keep mental notes about what can go wrong and right about saving/loading/changing parts. Splash around, have fun.

Kind of like these guys, except with parts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tpy_pYXSpPA

@ Darenger: Understood. You can't argue though that it's good to have the option to 'sample-lock'.
I have an early OT project that maxed out at 5 banks. I set this up before I cottoned onto the sample chains & ran out of sample slots. Using sample-locks I was able to recycle, & it was useful for setting up smoother transitions between different patterns when i could p-lock a sample from the last pattern into the new one (temporarily).

Darenager, I agree that sample locking isn't the quickest way. Sample chains are OK, a bit better. I was hoping for a drum machine / drum kit type machine where you have a folder of samples that make up a kit, and can easily program a monophonic drum line.

Also, the 128 slots might not be needed in each pattern/part, but all the parts in a project have to have their samples taken from the 128 slots (for each machine—flex/static). It's not that you don't need 128 samples for a given pattern, but you are limited to 128 for that project. It's a little different way to go about things, but to me it's not that bad getting used to. And I don't see this way of thinking for the OT going away. It's pretty fundamental, and it works.

Exuviae, you were suggesting having parts tied to each pattern with no option to swap them out. That's what I am vehemently opposed to.
A part contains:
-the default samples assigned to each track
-the page setups for the parameters, including effects
-scenes setup
Switching out a part can give you all sorts of fun options. Whether just hoping for a happy accident, or explicitly setting things up a certain way... maybe you want a whole different set of scenes, of you're big on those. One part could contain scenes that are just different length freeze delays, one contains A/B track fades, etc...
Or you can switch parts out to use a different kit of default samples on each track. That's probably the most obvious one. Or you can copy a part to another part, but set up different efx for that one. And with it comes all the scene setup for controlling those effects. There are a millions different ways swapping scenes could be useful. Same as changing kits in the MD, but FAR more versatile and powerful. With that comes some initial confusion.

Also, I want to share parts between some patterns. I'll make some patterns that are variations, or different sections of a song, but I don't want to have to save all the tweeks for the part on each pattern separately. If I turn down one track and adjust the filter on another, then save that part & set a restore point, it saves it for all the patterns that share that part. I don't have to do that 4 times. Or 16, if I have a whole bank of patterns sharing a part.


So yes, there's not reason to be opposed to having more parts, but I really don't see the concept going away. I guess one thing about having more parts, is it could get confusing if you do use them in these ways, when you now have 16 to choose from, instead of how it is now when you switch them (just North, South, East, or West).

It seems to me like Elektron thought all this through. They looked at memory availability, and how to best split that up to allow for plenty of versatility, power, as well as RAM sample availability.

It's not so bad, and it's really unfortunate that some people are actually scared off from the OT, just because people can't handle having 4 parts per bank. It's plenty for me, and if you don't ever want to share parts between patterns, then open up a new bank — VIOLA: 4 more parts.

Rusty wrote:
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
I see.
I just figured out myself that i better use banks for different "songs" than opening new projects.

doesn't mean i would not like to see one part per pattern.
i'd gladly give up on some Ram for samples but understand if others would not like to.
more flexible ram distribution seems to be the thing for several possible improvements, IMo

darenager wrote:
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.

You didn't get what ozone suggested to you.
He talked about the level knob being faster in operation regarding sample locks and not about the way you work.
By using the LEVEL knob to scroll through the sample slots is way much faster than using the arrows and and hitting the enter button to choose a sample.
Try it before posting again and you'll see the difference.

Furthermore nobody says you have to compare sliced sample chains and sample locking. Each method has its strong points.
Anyway all these are irrelevant to the part discussion. I think you are confused with the part situation the sample locking and the sample chaining.
Maybe what you are just missing is one part per pattern.
I miss that too but only regarding fx, lfo,track and mixer configurations and not for sample management. You can very easily adjust your 256 patterns inside a project playing different samples within one part only. You seem to understand this and you keep saying that you use one part but you don't like the way it works.
Sorry but your arguments seem to me to be irrational.

MrSysex wrote:
Darenager, I agree that sample locking isn't the quickest way. Sample chains are OK, a bit better. I was hoping for a drum machine / drum kit type machine where you have a folder of samples that make up a kit, and can easily program a monophonic drum line.

Also, the 128 slots might not be needed in each pattern/part, but all the parts in a project have to have their samples taken from the 128 slots (for each machineflex/static). It's not that you don't need 128 samples for a given pattern, but you are limited to 128 for that project. It's a little different way to go about things, but to me it's not that bad getting used to. And I don't see this way of thinking for the OT going away. It's pretty fundamental, and it works.

Exuviae, you were suggesting having parts tied to each pattern with no option to swap them out. That's what I am vehemently opposed to.
A part contains:
-the default samples assigned to each track
-the page setups for the parameters, including effects
-scenes setup
Switching out a part can give you all sorts of fun options. Whether just hoping for a happy accident, or explicitly setting things up a certain way... maybe you want a whole different set of scenes, of you're big on those. One part could contain scenes that are just different length freeze delays, one contains A/B track fades, etc...
Or you can switch parts out to use a different kit of default samples on each track. That's probably the most obvious one. Or you can copy a part to another part, but set up different efx for that one. And with it comes all the scene setup for controlling those effects. There are a millions different ways swapping scenes could be useful. Same as changing kits in the MD, but FAR more versatile and powerful. With that comes some initial confusion.

Also, I want to share parts between some patterns. I'll make some patterns that are variations, or different sections of a song, but I don't want to have to save all the tweeks for the part on each pattern separately. If I turn down one track and adjust the filter on another, then save that part & set a restore point, it saves it for all the patterns that share that part. I don't have to do that 4 times. Or 16, if I have a whole bank of patterns sharing a part.


So yes, there's not reason to be opposed to having more parts, but I really don't see the concept going away. I guess one thing about having more parts, is it could get confusing if you do use them in these ways, when you now have 16 to choose from, instead of how it is now when you switch them (just North, South, East, or West).

It seems to me like Elektron thought all this through. They looked at memory availability, and how to best split that up to allow for plenty of versatility, power, as well as RAM sample availability.

It's not so bad, and it's really unfortunate that some people are actually scared off from the OT, just because people can't handle having 4 parts per bank. It's plenty for me, and if you don't ever want to share parts between patterns, then open up a new bank  VIOLA: 4 more parts.

Totally agree with you.
The whole thread misses the point.

I think people opposing to the part concept are trying to use OT as traditional drum machine sampler and this logic fails by default. It's so much more than a drum machine.

Anyway I suggest people try to understand parts and save them frequently.
My last 2 cent on this thread.

kraftf wrote:

I miss that too but only regarding fx, lfo,track and mixer configurations and not for sample management.


yeah FX

No I understood he was talking about scrolling the list of slots.

The reason I only use 1 part is because the way that I find them counter intuitive, and as I said before at any time my machine only has a few patterns in it, and most of the time only a small number of samples loaded, again because I don't have the desire to scroll through a list of 128 samples. I am fortunate in that I have plenty of gear including 3 other samplers, so I am really only using my OT for sample mangling that my other 3 samplers cannot handle. If I just want some sampled drums for example I use my MV8800 or RS7000 because it is 100 times quicker - but it is no match for the OT for sound design, fx and some other things.

I guess it comes down to studio use or live use - I don't have a need to have tons of patterns and samples in memory at once, sure it would be nice, but I do know I'd use the OT much more if I could make some kits, load them in make some patterns, then the next day make some new kits assigned to different patterns, and continue like that. The current way with parts seems too cumbersome because if I change a sample used in one pattern it changes it in all patterns that use that part, I can see why for some that may be an advantage but for me its not, often I start with a good idea of what sound I want assign it and use it, if I was more into experimenting then maybe parts would be more useful.

If my point seems irrational then that is because I find the whole part thing irrational - and yes we are in agreement that it would be useless to have a part for each pattern if each could not have its own fx, mixer config etc.

Quoting Anselmi "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"

This thread makes me want to kill someone. With an OT.

Maybe Hector will save us all.

Yeah I'm beginning to wish I'd never mentioned it