Elektron Musical Instruments

Hey elektroners, do you think we might be able to get a game on the 
monomachine? like pong or something? :) or maybe a little drawing 
program^_- pong would be ill tho :) SO SWEEEET! with the 
joystick...be so fun...i think this is too mcu hto ask, but kurzweli 
has one D: and so does PPG so why can't elektron!

-ryan 





--- In elektron-users@yahoogroups.com, Federico Ciapi 
<federico.ciapi@t...> wrote:
> 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