Elektron Musical Instruments

Thanks for your reply, Daniel.

> First just a general note: We always put ease of use first, so even if 
> a
> feature sometimes can be good for some ocasions we might rule it out
> because it comes in the way of the everyday use, or is not intuitive to
> understand. If we wouldn't do that we'd force all users to carefully 
> read
> the users manual, and it wouldn't be that much fun then.

That's why we are all in love with the Md, isn't it?

Daniel, I've started this thread because:

- you're developing the Mono and I think if someone has some wishes 
they'd better come out now, given that its sequencer has many thing in 
common with the MD.
- you're on the forum, so we can ask you what's possible, or why not 
(some limitations could be less than clear for us)
- it's also a way to check if there's something that all would like, a 
way to find the most valuable improvements that could be made to the MD 
(or may be find their way into a new product ?)

This is no complaining at all.

>>>   - We already know that the MM is capable of different swing for
>>> every
>>>    track... obviously that's something that I would like to see in
>>> the MD
>>>    too.
>
> The problem about adding stuff to the Machinedrum is that we do not 
> want
> to break what's already there. We'd divide the userbase in two parts if
> the upgrade would destroy all data already in there. The MD currently 
> has
> one swing track. If we would make it one per track, what would we do 
> with
> the current only one? We do not rule this one out though, there could 
> be a
> way, we haven't looked into it yet.

If there's a way to assign the curent swing to all tracks, that 
wouldn't make any change. IF there's one.

May be just letting the user chose the desired amount of swing for 
every track would be enough?
I think that the swing steps should remain the same for every track, or 
it would become a big mess ???

Daniel, a question about swing: seems like it increases in steps, 
sometimes 5%.
If it's so, then why not put there only the valuable values?

>>> - Parameter Locks are linked to patterns; it would be wonderful if
>>>    there was a parameter locks track in song mode that allow you to
>>> make
>>>    changes that happen over multiple patterns.
>>>    That's something that has already been done on the Quasimidi drum
>>>    machine and currently can be done on the MD only if synced to an
>>>    external sequencer.
>>>    May be it's already possible on the MM?
>
> To edit stuff on a song level would of course be nice, but that rises
> questions you might not have thought of. How would you edit the new 
> layer
> of locks? How would you distinguish a song lock from a parameter lock? 
> I'm
> afraid this would compromise the simplicity of the MD sequencer. After
> all, there is something about the directness that makes it more fun to 
> use
> it than to fiddle with the common straight line sequencer.

Song locks could be incremental to pattern locks.
That would allow simple things like cut off modulations.
But I see your point - the MD interface is not suited to this at all, 
as it is now.
Anyway that would be really useful. Maybe in MD2 ;-)

I'm already doing this kind of modulations with an external sequencer.

>>>>    - Muting should be available via Midi. That would be really 
>>>> helpful
>>>>    when using the MD and MM with an external sequencer.
>
>
> That's a good idea. We would just need to find the right controller. 
> We've
> used pretty much all there are for the Machinedrum. If a SYSEX would be
> enough it would be easy.

If it can be done with minimal effort, well... please make it :-)))


>    - Function + Level knob: increases or lowers volume of all tracks
>>>    except the one currently selected (very useful when the current
>>> track
>>>    is already at max volume and it needs a bit more)
>
> Could maybe be something good... It would mean that we would introduce 
> the
> first thing that would edit something that you have not actively 
> selected
> though.

Think of it as "increase level of current track by lowering other 
tracks"
This way, it should be function + turn level clockwise
But there should be a way to maintain the overall mix levels, they 
should stop decreasing when one of the tracks reaches 0)


>>> *wonderful* idea!  I also wish it were possible to somehow link the
>>> volume of several tracks together.  that way, if you want to fade 
>>> out,
>>> say your drum sounds while your crazy elektro sounds continue to 
>>> play,
>>> you can do it without having to use routing and an external mixer.
>
> To add another link layer would be good for use, but would it be worth 
> the
> complexity? Would you do it globally or per track? Would it be worth 
> the
> complexity of yet another mode to go into? I'm not sure. It would have 
> to
> be judged against all other things that would be handy to link.
> Mute-groups etc. Remember that all features have their price in 
> complexity
> if you do not find a good method to implement it. Usually that is made
> when the interface is made. Look at Yamaha sequencers, they are 
> experts in
> making overloaded interfaces with lot's of features that are too 
> complex
> to use. I still think the basic edit-methods are the most important.

may be that could be done within the edit kit menu?
there you could link together tracks and make one follow the level of 
the other.

Wait, it seems like a Yamaha feature to me too!


>>> - "empty" notes; they don't trigger drum sounds but you can assign
>>> 	parameter locks to them for more smooth parameter sweeps (the MM has
>>> 	this, and I really hope they give it to the MM's older brother as
>>> 	well)
>
> We add this to the Monomachine because we have three-colored LED's. But
> how would be show them on the Machinedrum? We already have the blink.
> Maybe a different blink would be good enough, but I don't want a dozen
> different blinks in there that the user need to keep track off.

good point.
it could be a faster blink, or pressing function alone could make all 
empty locks light.
Not really as intuitive as a three colored led, but it could work.


>>> - make the mute screen a *tiny* icon in a corner of the screen 
>>> instead
>>> 	of in the middle; it's small now, but still blocks parameter values 
>>> as
>>> 	is; perhaps just an 'M' next to the kit number?
>
> Does it really hide so much of the parameters now that it disturbs?

As soon as you touch a knob, the mute screen becomes really small... I 
don't think it's going to disturb much.
Anyway if it were more on the left it would disturb even less (but I'm 
not asking you to spend much time coding this, I'd prefer some new 
machines instead :-)


>>> - make there an option to illustrate knobs rather than values in song
>>> 	mode; I've grown used to seeing the knobs in pattern mode and when I
>>> 	go to song mode and view values, it throws me off; but if someone
>>> 	prefers the values, then make it so that they can select that option
>>
>> I think that knobs are too big to show in song mode.
>> But a bar could fit!
>
> That would also differ from the knob and make the visual appearens
> different. I think actual values is the best compromise. At least they 
> can
> be referred to also from the pattern mode.

A bar would at least give a visual, much more immediate representation 
of the parameters.
I don't feel much need for this, but may be someone else does?


>>> - parameter locks can be used to control the delay and reverb engines
>>
>> even better if these locks were linked to the song and not only to the
>> pattern (I think that this is even more  important for efx)
>
> What track would they be linked to? A new one? If so, what would a trig
> mean? And what would the 16 selection LED's show if there were one? 
> Would
> it mean that you couldn't reach the drums when you're in the master fx
> menus. Again, there is a cost to the feature.

This would need a new track.
A trig should be an "empty" trig, like the one Joe has suggested before.

Could you make efx parameters controllable via midi?
(Are they already? I've never tried and I'm rebuilding my studio)


>>> - the ability to name individual machines; to remind you that your
>>> 	kick/snare/hats are now on machines 9/10/11 instead of 1/2/3
>
> Where would this be displayed? Would you really take your time to edit 
> the
> names?

Joe?? :-))

> I can't go into detailed discussions about all feature requests, but I
> just wanted to show that there are so many things to think about that
> might not spring to mind immediately. And that we do not refuse 
> features
> to be mean, but there is usually some good thought behind it! A musical
> instrument should never be able to do everything in my opinion, then it
> becomes a monster that's much not fun to use. For me the most 
> important is
> fun of use, and that often does not go well with too many layers and
> hard-to-reach functions! Not said that there is room for an 
> improvement or
> two in the Machinedrum!

Daniel, I think that everyone on this list will agree with you on this.

But please consider that our wishes aren't REQUESTS, just WISHES.
We don't know if they are possible or not, you do :-)

Thanks again, keep up the awesome work you're doing
(and show us that sampler prototype that you're hiding in your labs ;-)

Federico