Elektron-Users

polyoptics wrote:
There are posters in here with much more experience than me, so I'll just share a similarity I noticed in new workflows as a beginner:

When I first used the MnM and later the MD, it was very strange to me that my sounds were not saved with my patterns, and that I had to save a new 'kit' or remember to save my kit, and that changes to a kit would effect all patterns that used that same kit. I messed up a bunch of patterns this way.

It seems very simple now and I understand the benefit of kits.

Using the OT so far, I feel the exact same way about parts. I get it -- but I am still constructing my own workflow, while trying to see clearly the intended workflow, which is still partially undiscovered/undisclosed.

This thread is a good read, its fun to watch some of the heavy forum hitters post in one place.


I agree when I first got the MD it took a bit of learning and then the mnm was (as is stated frequently even today) more of a leaning curve. Reason would dictate that the OT will be a great leap forwrd and as with all of Elektons gear something that the user must meet the company halfway. In a bit of time we will be defending 'parts' and wondering what all this confussion was about.

AikiGhost wrote:
kraftf wrote:

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

No YOU miss the point of the thread which is NOT to defend elektron but to get them to do something about it.



Look man I am not affiliated to electron and I am not a a user in this forum for a long time to be accused with such nonsense. OT is the first machine that I own from these guys. I am not defending Electron I just trying to be constructive a word that's propably missing from your vocabulary.

AikiGhost wrote:
kraftf wrote:

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.

Cant it be both?
You see what I mean?
I stated that it is much more than a sampling drum machine and you are asking if it can't be both.
For something to be more than a sampling drum machine it has to be one at first. You are not paying attention to what I am saying and you just wanna do your thing.
Anyway I am not following the path of controversy with you. I am a way too happy user of OT and my requests for its improvement are much more probable to become true than yours.
Lastly I would say enjoy your OT experience since you know it so well as you say.

Isn't it all to do with the scenes?

There is nothing stopping you from copying a part from Bank A to a part in Bank B, which at first thought seems odd, why take up extra space with a copy of the part, you might as well use the MD/MnM method of gloablly available Kits (Parts).

But i think the reasoning for the banks storing their Parts (or kits) locally is that the Scenes are stored with the Bank not the parts. Therefore if you use the example above copying the Part is only half the picture if your using scenes to provide movement, really use need to copy some if not all of them as well.

So the logic behind the parts over kits makes sense to me.

ipassenger wrote:
Isn't it all to do with the scenes?

There is nothing stopping you from copying a part from Bank A to a part in Bank B, which at first thought seems odd, why take up extra space with a copy of the part, you might as well use the MD/MnM method of gloablly available Kits (Parts).

But i think the reasoning for the banks storing their Parts (or kits) locally is that the Scenes are stored with the Bank not the parts. Therefore if you use the example above copying the Part is only half the picture if your using scenes to provide movement, really use need to copy some if not all of them as well.

So the logic behind the parts over kits makes sense to me.

The scenes as far as I know are stored with the parts.
Maybe a global part for all banks would be more useful than it is now restricted to one bank.
I think that's something worth discussing.

kraftf wrote:
The scenes as far as I know are stored with the parts.
Maybe a global part for all banks would be more useful than it is now restricted to one bank.
I think that's something worth discussing.

Ahh... In that case I'll stay quiet.

Inspired by this thread I have been experimenting with parts again today, and some aspects of them do make a lot of sense, particularly for live use, and some of my issues were partly down to lack of patience and a bit of amnesia () but loading an empty project and experimenting with them without a care of losing any work I did have some fun. But my overall feeling is that I still would prefer that perhaps parts were organised differently, maybe the separation of parts from slots and just have them for scenes, fx type, machine selection etc, and have patterns hold the specific slot for each of the tracks, and I still very much feel that sample/slot assignment is a bit long winded and could be clarified.

Also I still feel it is too easy to mess something up by inadvertantly overwriting a slot in a part.

Regarding sample locks - I think a massive improvment could be made by simply bringing up the sample lock list by default when you hold a trig in record mode - it already does this once sample locks have been placed, but it would be very nice for it to do it right away making less button pressing necessary.

echopraxia wrote:
As far as P-locking different samples using the up and down keys or the volume knob. You cannot preview the sample while trying to do this (function+Enter) so if you don't remember if it was sample #20 808snarehi--- or #21 808snarehi-- your just gonna have to guess which is the right one.

This is a big deal for me and I've been meaning to send Elektron an email about it. Send me an email at 12bitlibrarian at g to the mail dot com if you want to discuss. That's gmail, btw.

darenager wrote:
Inspired by this thread I have been experimenting with parts again today, and some aspects of them do make a lot of sense, particularly for live use, and some of my issues were partly down to lack of patience and a bit of amnesia () but loading an empty project and experimenting with them without a care of losing any work I did have some fun. But my overall feeling is that I still would prefer that perhaps parts were organised differently, maybe the separation of parts from slots and just have them for scenes, fx type, machine selection etc, and have patterns hold the specific slot for each of the tracks, and I still very much feel that sample/slot assignment is a bit long winded and could be clarified.

Also I still feel it is too easy to mess something up by inadvertantly overwriting a slot in a part.

Regarding sample locks - I think a massive improvment could be made by simply bringing up the sample lock list by default when you hold a trig in record mode - it already does this once sample locks have been placed, but it would be very nice for it to do it right away making less button pressing necessary.

Now you are making more sense to me!!
Totally agree with you about bringing up the the sample slot by default when you press a trig. Another thing they could possibly do is real time trigs. To be more specific:
A realtime trig could disable temporarily the track playing when pressed and give playback to itself on a selectable by option grid for e.g 8/16th long. That way we could preview all the scrolling in sample slots in sync with the pattern. Don't know if this is easy to implement but it would be super cool to have it.
Also agree that pattern should have sample assignments locked to them as well as mutes and tempo. And this could also be user selectable through the personalize page.
I think we are getting more constructive here.

To be honest my intention was for it always to be constructive, that is after all the point of this forum, and I'm not too egotistical to not take stuff in and even admit I'm wrong or that I misunderstood something if that was the case.

Yes I think a lot of what is being said is of the same sentiment, but unfortunately sometimes our different experiences can lead to different ways of saying and doing things and possibly a bit of confusion and misunderstanding.

Back on topic:

I have a very good feeling that a lot of what is being wished will come in future updates, a very long time ago I asked for samples slots to be p-lockable, sample locks are almost there but a few small additions such as having slot available as an LFO target could prove to be very interesting too.

Sample chains are of course very handy, but the trade off is some preparation is required, it would be nice to have a machine to faciltate their creation - we can do it manually right on the OT by using sample locks and resampling, then manually slicing and saving as a new sample, but it sure would be great if the machine would do this automatically, then assign a special chain playback machine that has a parameter in place of slice which shows the names of the sample in each slice - possibly on the same area of screen used to display sample locks. The difference between this and actual sample locks is that only 1 sample slot (albeit a longer one) is required and therefore slot assignment becomes much more efficient and simple, and a few chains themselves could also be sample locked giving a much greater choice of possible sounds on a step. This chain machine could double as a kind of granular machine if very short slices were used, with perhaps some small modification to the envelope to control any pops etc.