Elektron Musical Instruments

Do we have to really sacrifice one of the MIDI parameters? Couldn't the  
midi channel number be just a single kit parameter that cannot be  
modulated and so that it would stay static thru the pattern. Like the  
joystick, velocity and keytracking settings for the internal MnM machines?  
This way only 6 numbers per kit would need to be stored (if the storage is  
the issue here...)

Of course this has the limitation that the midi channels for each kit are  
fixed, but the again it would be a huge improvement compared to the  
current one.

Other thing as Tony already mentioned would be to add a new kind of midi  
track parameter which would be like the other midi track parameters, but  
it could be only set per pattern and would stay fixed. It couldn't be  
modulated, slided or param lock'd (who would apply lfo to midi channel  
number anyway).

Or, the CC4 could go. However, it just happens that microQ has 4 dedicated  
custom cc's to be used in the modulation matrix. Now it fits perfectly  
even though I've never used more than 2 params per microQ patch... :) I  
think that G2x users would have something to say about this, too.

There is a potential problem with the per-kit or per-pattern midi channel.  
The cc's like the midi channels are currently assigned globally. So  
basically we would need to have either also the cc's defined per kit (not  
good) or per pattern or have some kind of "midi instrument definition"  
which would map the correct cc's for each midi channel.

So instead of table of 6 fixed midi channels with fixed cc's that we have  
now you would have a table of 16 channels (midi parts) and fixed cc's for  
them. And in the kit/pattern you would be able to choose the midi channel  
and the cc's used are then taken from the table.

BTW, with these assignable midi channels you would be able to write  
polyphonic patterns with overlapping midi notes. Currently it's not  
possible.

But definately a huge +1 from me. For controlling multi-part instruments  
this would be a blessing. I have microQ, SN2 and Virus so in *theory* I  
should be able to control 40 different parts at a time ;D

- sampsa / texmex


On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 22:21:47 +0200, Tony Scharf <tony@...> wrote:

>
> Ideally, you wouldnt loose any - there would be a second page with just
> one parameter on it.
>
> Not having that, I'd give up C4.  For myself, velocity, PB, MW and 2
> controllers is already more modulation that I am going to send to a
> single device.  Plus, in a larger midi system (like I have) getting
> around the 6 track barrier, and having the channels set in the pattern
> (rather than having to deal with only 8 global slots) would be beyond
> worth it.
>
> even if it was a static setting, and you couldnt sequence the channel
> assignment, having it in the pattern rather than the global menu would
> be a huge convenience.
>
> Tony
>
>
> daniel_elektron wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> ...so which parameter would you choose to remove then? //d
>>
>> --- In elektron-users@yahoogroups.com
>> <mailto:elektron-users%40yahoogroups.com>, Tony Scharf <tony@...> wrote:
>>  >
>>  > If the MonoMachine could have just *one* thing changed, I would make  
>> it
>>  > how the MIDI tracks channels are assigned in the globals section. I
>>  > would take it out of there, and make it a track parameter that could  
>> be
>>  > changed per step.
>>  >
>>  > *that* would be wonderful.
>>  >
>>  > Tony
>>  >
>>
>>
>
>