Elektron-Users

ipassenger wrote:
dataline wrote:




One way I like to work without having the fear of destroying any other PARTs is to have an IDEA in each of the BANKs. By selecting an empty BANK, I can start something new without having the danger of destroying previous PARTs .

If then I want to work on one of the ideas, I would go to that BANK and start making few patterns for each of the 4 PARTs.

Also when I am building a tune in a BANK, I would limit myself to use PART1 for the first 4 patterns, PART 2 for the second 4 patterns and so on...Of course I would be copying and pasting parts in between and make alterations to them

Not sure if this was covered here but thought I would chip in

^^ this is what i do... pretty much.

that's pretty much how i have been working as well. i was struggling to find a way to say it. well put!

ideas per bank, developments, contrasting ideas, song sections all are covered by the 16 patterns available... basically one bank per any given track i am working on is how i am rolling at this point. realistically, i probably wouldn't ever need more than 4 parts and eight patterns on a track i build in OT anyway. 16 if i am very ambitous. throw in scenes, sample locks, sample chaining ant slices and i have more power than i could ever need for my working methods. this is essentially why i have no issue with parts.

kirlian wrote:
ipassenger wrote:
dataline wrote:




One way I like to work without having the fear of destroying any other PARTs is to have an IDEA in each of the BANKs. By selecting an empty BANK, I can start something new without having the danger of destroying previous PARTs .

If then I want to work on one of the ideas, I would go to that BANK and start making few patterns for each of the 4 PARTs.

Also when I am building a tune in a BANK, I would limit myself to use PART1 for the first 4 patterns, PART 2 for the second 4 patterns and so on...Of course I would be copying and pasting parts in between and make alterations to them

Not sure if this was covered here but thought I would chip in

^^ this is what i do... pretty much.

that's pretty much how i have been working as well..


me too now.
But it took me a long time to find the best workflow for me.
part1 = pattern1, part2= pattern 5, part3= pattern 9, part4 = pattern 13,
so i allways know whcih parts are where and i don't kill them anymore.

now we need at least better copy functions from bank to bank.
copy entire bank to other bank
copy one pattern and its part to other bank
still, one part per pattern would make things much easier

poonti wrote:
anselmi wrote:
I wish the OT´s file management system would be simpler...

in example, my ESX is dead simple and functional...you got 1 sample pool and 256 patterns per "session"...you just select a part, browse the sample and that´s all...

saving the pattern just save the associated samples with it, so when you dial the pattern it just plays the samples...easy...

I wish the OT´s file management system would be simpler...
^ This! And it even does "sample chaining" and slicing by Transients (which I used to hold more drum kits). Now I don't miss my ESX's sound, but I do miss its simplicity. Anyway, OT is a different beast altogether, and I don't think it will ever be as simple to use as a Tribe, so we better get used to the way it works.

It has always been understood by anyone getting into elektron that you need to program it to get great results. Dig deep and you will be rewarded with incredible sounds. It's like an eusers nerd mantra. So why now is it a problem that a few extra button pushes is taking away from the OT's simplicity? It certainly doesn't stop people like dataline from doing fantastic live work with it. Why on earth would the OT ever be compared to an esx because its a sampling sequencer with effects? That's about it. I felt cramped and severely limited by the esx. That's why I went elektron when I sold it. Anyway, a few button pushes should be child's play to you, anselmi! Based on your synth experience that is.

There is a significant and important distinction between an interface being simple, and an interface being clear. a simple interface will give you less control of of the inner workings, or make access to the inner working more complicated (or in some rare Cases give you knob or button per function while still allowing you to take it all in in one glance like the nord lead) A clear interface will give you clear, understandable access to the inner workings no matter how simple or complex they are and regardless of a user's understanding of them. I think the OT has a clear and easy interface and users just aren't sure how to apply this new development of parts.

I definitely agree with a few of the perspectives on why 4 parts per bank is a problem, but making the OT simpler to make it more like a product or concept it is vastly superior to is just plain unelektron an not nearly nerdy enough for these halls.

Ready: flame me!!

Don your flameproof suit sir!

Nah, I can see what you are saying, and I don't think anyone is displeased with the results they are getting. I think there are a few factors at play here, a lot of the frustrations from guys who have had it a while also stem from the number of operational changes versus the amount of free time to spend re-learning: The double edged sword of being an early adopter

But you are right that these machines are deep and supposed to be so, mastery takes many hours, but still some user interface tweaks without losing features would be welcome, right?

kirlian wrote:
poonti wrote:
anselmi wrote:
I wish the OT´s file management system would be simpler...

in example, my ESX is dead simple and functional...you got 1 sample pool and 256 patterns per "session"...you just select a part, browse the sample and that´s all...

saving the pattern just save the associated samples with it, so when you dial the pattern it just plays the samples...easy...

I wish the OT´s file management system would be simpler...
^ This! And it even does "sample chaining" and slicing by Transients (which I used to hold more drum kits). Now I don't miss my ESX's sound, but I do miss its simplicity. Anyway, OT is a different beast altogether, and I don't think it will ever be as simple to use as a Tribe, so we better get used to the way it works.

It has always been understood by anyone getting into elektron that you need to program it to get great results. Dig deep and you will be rewarded with incredible sounds. It's like an eusers nerd mantra. So why now is it a problem that a few extra button pushes is taking away from the OT's simplicity? It certainly doesn't stop people like dataline from doing fantastic live work with it. Why on earth would the OT ever be compared to an esx because its a sampling sequencer with effects? That's about it. I felt cramped and severely limited by the esx. That's why I went elektron when I sold it. Anyway, a few button pushes should be child's play to you, anselmi! Based on your synth experience that is.

There is a significant and important distinction between an interface being simple, and an interface being clear. a simple interface will give you less control of of the inner workings, or make access to the inner working more complicated (or in some rare Cases give you knob or button per function while still allowing you to take it all in in one glance like the nord lead) A clear interface will give you clear, understandable access to the inner workings no matter how simple or complex they are and regardless of a user's understanding of them. I think the OT has a clear and easy interface and users just aren't sure how to apply this new development of parts.

I definitely agree with a few of the perspectives on why 4 parts per bank is a problem, but making the OT simpler to make it more like a product or concept it is vastly superior to is just plain unelektron an not nearly nerdy enough for these halls.

Ready: flame me!!

I don´t have problem with diving into gear in search of new stuff...I got modular synths, other elektron gear and most of the rest of my stuff are in the complex side

I agre with you about the interface thing, and I think the MD and MnM are clear, the OT don´t....it´s innecesary convoluted

I believe one of the elektron strong points is (was) the user interface...they make complex stuff feels simple, clear, intuitive...all this goodies was praised several times in the past in this very forum

I feel all this is kinda gone with the OT and I can´t see why...they keep the sample and the sequencer sections in the clear and intuitive way we all know and love but the sample management seems to be made by yamaha

darenager wrote:
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.

I think this is a good suggestion.

Rusty wrote:
darenager wrote:
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.

I think this is a good suggestion.

Instead of editing parameter locks when you first hold down a step?
It's only 1 button press away to get to the list (UP).
If it were the other way around, as you're suggesting, I bet you might start thinking "hmm, I wish I didn't have to press that one extra button just to do normal parameter locks."
The way it is now, you hold the step and have access to all the various parameters to lock; the way you're suggesting you only have access (without button presses) to one- which sample to lock. Or am I reading you wrong?

^ Er, on my machine when the sample lock window is open I can still see all the other parameters too, so nothing would be lost. Certainly would not be worth it if sample lock window obscured parameters.

Yeah I know it is only holding 2 buttons, (trig+ up or down) but if it can be achieved just holding 1 button its easier to remember, more efficient and frees up the trig+ up/down button combo for some other function.

EDIT p59 in the manual - that window, not the sample browser window that we use to load the slots, which would obscure the parameters.

In regard how much work it makes to manage the parts so that you are really on the save side ,when generating a new series of pattern with all the experimenting going on within that work
I really really wish to get a part per pattern !

i was today on the Octa.
4 parts per bank with 16 banks is enough for much music,
but the management as is makes unnecessary workload.
It's a factor that really counts IMHO !


elektron please bring that part per pattern.
Your FX is powerful, very good to use in very musical way, one part per pattern just the only logic way to go.
I mean, do i like to have different FX settings per pattern ?
different mute and level settings per pattern ?
one part per pattern please, less RAM for samples

edit: i lik eto experiment on patterns without beeing afraid that i kill another pattern, or first have to copy and paste, maybe to other banks, bevore i can experiment.....
where's the logic ?

lostinthemanual wrote:
elektron please bring that part per pattern.
Your FX is powerful, very good to use in very musical way, one part per pattern just the only logic way to go.
I mean, do i like to have different FX settings per pattern ?
different mute and level settings per pattern ?
one part per pattern please, less RAM for samples

Couldn't agree more.