Elektron-Users

I'm a little unclear on how the proposed hold function would differ from just using a series of trigs to loop the captured beat.

Allerian wrote:
I'm a little unclear on how the proposed hold function would differ from just using a series of trigs to loop the captured beat.
Maybe the beat is not a good example. Think of it this way. You create a file of 8 different single cycle loop of oscillators (1024 bytes each) and transmit it, for example, to rom-place 32. Now you 'lock on' to each individual cycle with start and end -parameters, but this way the cycle will only be played once. No looping here, because you can only set one loop point to one sample. So making a effective single-cycle oscillator with the UW, you can only load one cycle per sample. You are with me so far? Retriggering doesn't do it, because it is just *retriggering* the cycle with certain rate (technically it is 'sync'). With retriggering you can play single osc with some speed, but will not be able to pitch it up and down with the semitones (at least you will break the smooth cycling, which generally sounds bad).

Now, if one could set start and end parameters to which ever and *then active the loop* with the hold setted to maximum 127, you could pitch up and down easily. With another set of start and end, you are changing the core cycle of the oscillator (little pulse here and saw there). Change the start and end to odd values and you will be scanning thru bunch of waves, which might sound similar to DigiPro at the MnM. You see the difference?

And now in the end, microlooping the beat, with start and end parameters, you could set repeating loops *that repeat themselves off from the sequencer grid*. If you use 'just series of trig to loop captured beat', you will end up triggering them always with the perfect align with the sequencer grid. With looping feature, you could in someways break out of the grid. Actually would be pretty nice for inventive glitchy loops.

Well, thats how I understand it at least. The more I think of it, the better it sounds. We should really approach Elektron with this fine-tune of UW-machines. That is, if others accept it also. I don't see how this would break anything how the UW-machines work now. By setting the hold to max (127) you introduce endless decay. Most of the cases you want to use this, because you have somekind of loop introduced with the sample created. This way you can only do one looppoint. With the new fine-tune, you could change as you would want. Sounds pretty good to me,

Nils wrote:
This is an interesting discussion. I see that I'm a UW rookie

Actuel; did you get a response to your suggestion to move the loop on/off functionality to the hold parameter?

"We'll add it to the list." was the response i got. gawd only knows how long that list might be

-----

Toni did a great job of explaining this and is far more articulate...i struggle with my own native English language. so the short version i will explain in an example: (verbal blunder will ensue)

Within your preferred audio editor or in C6 you can set a sample to 'Loop On'. What this means is the sample will play in continuous loop/infinity if your End point is set to 127. in order to get a wavetable and be able to 'scan' through the waveform you need to be able to move within that loop. Well this is the issue. As of now you can move the Start point but if you adjust your end point below 127 it will no longer be set to loop infinity.

The suggestion of moving the sample to Loop On to Hold would mean you could then within the loop adjust your Start and End points freely giving you more of a Wavetable like interaction.

It's not a slick as the Ti's interpolation feature but with parameter locks and LFO'ing the Start and End point you can get some really cool wavetable synthesis. Loop On as of now is pretty cool but i think moving the Loop On to Hold not only makes more sense but will also open up the UW ROM's for far more synthesis possibilities.

and what Toni said

I'd agree as well, having it onthe Hold parameter makes more sense. In fact when I first started messing with looped samples loaded into the UW, I was surprised it wasn't the hold parameter controlling this.

Just a slight concern about the hold parameter changing functionality.. If I understand this correctly, with hold set to 127 thereby giving an endless loop, you will also cancel out the decay parameter, always giving you full sustain on any sound? If this is the case, these two tricks might be suitable workarounds:
1. Stopping the sound by entering an event at VOL=O where you want the sound to stop. OR
2. More elegantly, set VOL=0 in on the whole track, and use a single shot ramp to control the volume.
I've used these simple techinques for "alternative envelopes" in other cases, works well.

I've read and reread and I'm still unclear. To my mind, setting up a "looping" anything on the MD (as opposed to rhythmically triggering it on time) would cause any length inaccuracy to shift the loop out of time over a period of measures. Am I completely missing it here?

By the way, this thread is way more "Elektron Gear" than "Sandbox", imo.

Allerian wrote:
I've read and reread and I'm still unclear. To my mind, setting up a "looping" anything on the MD (as opposed to rhythmically triggering it on time) would cause any length inaccuracy to shift the loop out of time over a period of measures. Am I completely missing it here?
No, you are not missing anything here, you are correct. There are just so many different angles how one could approach MD features; I realized that you have somewhat different approach to this than I have. I guess the usefulness loop feature with the different single cycle waves is clear to you, so I wont go back to it anymore. But here is how I would approach the loop-thing with the beat:

I would make one bar beat and sample it with the RAM-record. Then I would use the Ram-play to construct the second bar (I have MK1). I would do it so that I would parameter lock little loops with Start and End knobs and would turn the loop on. For example in the step 16 I would trigger of loop of 2,3 steps to loop continuosly for 8 steps. Odd loop lenght would break out from the grid. Then from step 24 I would engage another loop with the lenght of 1,3 steps and let it run for 4 steps. That would be enough, for steps 28-32 I would just use the regular beat. This way I have introduced a small microloops that have a syncopated rhythm within the pattern. Little glitches where perception of rhythm is manipulated; yes, inaccuracies, as you say, but being played with. I think you approached the loops from the different angle, like looping long beats in sync with the grid (=sequencer).

The way things are now, is that you can make microloops with retrigger, but they are never longer than one step, because the maximum value for RTIME (127) means one step. So the MD retrigger works within the timeframe of 0-1 steps. Beyond that, you have to use the grid and you are slaved to it. I think the MnM has this better: RTIME of the DPro-Beatbox allows user to have odd syncopated retriggerings, like retriggering BD every 1,5 steps. Very enjoyable (but you probably already know this).

Am I making it any more clear or am I just making it more mess?

By the way, this thread is way more "Elektron Gear" than "Sandbox", imo.
Yeah, it has become a feature request thread. I guess we started from wavetables. Anyone seen this:

http://www.galbanum.com/products/architecture-universal/

1800 singe cycle waves!!
Sometime ago I downloaded a demo of that, which comes with 50 or so cycles. Everything trimmed to 1024 samples, giving you a middle-C. I tried them with the MD, loading single cycle wave to one slot with loop turned on. You can make your MD a pretty basic bassline-synthesizer. But it takes one whole slot for one cycle! If we could set the loop with the Start end End parameters, one could have, for example, 16 different waves in one slot taking just 16 kb! That would make a pretty nice collection of oscillators for basslines.

Product above, would also be pretty handy for upcoming MnM wavetables
I just hope they would find a way to implement to MK1 versions too. I mean, the SXF-6 is the mothership and should have it also!

Thanks Toni - you're right, I had never thought about using the UW features in this way.

Man, isn't this the beauty of Elektron gear?

Honestly I still don't understand the difference between Sandbox and Elektron gear anyway

In my mind, the Sandbox is supposed to be articles that give you something to try right now - something that comes with circles and arrows that point at the cool parts.

From the get-go I've feared that it would simply become Elektron Gear ][ rather than an instructional, inspiring resource..