Elektron Musical Instruments

I am considering the other way : External Sequencer -> MD

Wouldn't the CC you suggest to be sent between notes affect the 
sound ? I may think wrong but my point is that incoming CCs are 
processed as soon as received. If so it becomes clear that a change 
in the pitch or filter settings would change the sound realtime.

I know that you are suggesting a solution enabling the MD to "spit 
out" its parameter locks but it seems to me that the usual thing is 
that a sequence recorded from an instrument by an external sequencer 
should give the same results when being replayed with the same 
instrument from the exernal sequencer. If I understand you correctly, 
that would not work.

However, that could be a feature of the MD with a cryptic name 
like "asynchronous play" or anything you'd like :)

I hope I haven't been too cryptic myself.

Xavier

--- In elektron-users@y..., "oldmanfury" <erinys@s...> wrote:
> Thanks for the information Daniel - I appreciate your arguments, 
> especially given the fact that you included numbers concerning the 
> MIDI standard that I myself am not familiar with.
> 
> I still think that you could send CC's between 'note on' events.  
> There is plenty of room between notes - at 120 BPM, there is 500 ms 
> between note triggers - you could stick close to 500 CC's in there 
> and never miss a beat.  Even at higher BPM - 180 for example, you 
> could throw ~ 300 CC events between triggers.  I have never 
recorded 
> this many paramter locks in a pattern - I think it must be rare 
that 
> somebody does.  
> 
> If you were to go through all of the preset patterns that the MD 
> ships with, I'm guessing that they would all play back nearly 
> identically if you could record them with CC events placed in 
between 
> notes.  I think that dropping CC's would be very rare.  Having 360 
> parameter locks per step (or whatever the number is) is overkill 
for 
> most music.  If I'm wrong, then point me at some mp3's that 
required 
> this degree of control.  I'm glad to have that many locks - don't 
get 
> me wrong - but I'd be happier if I could also export patterns with 
> lock values to cubase.
> 
> I would also be happy to give up smooth sweeps in order to be able 
to 
> record the parameter locks.  If I write a pattern that requires 
> smooth sweeps, then I have no problem using the MD's internal 
> sequencer to achieve this end.
> 
> Anyway - I really dig the MD, and I really appreciate the support 
> (the new OS addresses just about every complaint aired in this 
forum, 
> and adds a bunch of functionality as well).  How much room is left 
in 
> the EPROM for additional upgrades?  Two things I'd like to see are 
a 
> graphical representation of the dynamix compression curve, and a 16 
x 
> 16 square grid representation of a pattern (like some drum machines 
> have).
> 
> Keep up the excellent work.
> 
> -gerald
> 
> > And if you suggest we'd collect the CC's that are sent over 
between
> > trigs that's not a very good idea as well, as that would prevent 
you
> > from doing smooth sweeps from outside. Leaving us to a special 
NRPN
> > system for trigs which would take more bandwidth and limit the 
> number
> > of possible locks even more.
> >
> > The MIDI channel business is a non issue here as it takes the same
> > amount of time to transfer on any, and you can not transmit
> > simultaneously, only serial, as MIDI is a serial protocol. And CC
> > is faster than NRPN as NRPN generally is two CC messages.
> > 
> > I hope that the explanation above gives you a better idea of why 
we
> > say it is "impossible" to allow the locks to be transmitted by 
MIDI,
> > even though it could work acceptably in certain limited 
situations!
> > 
> > Daniel Hansson, Elektron