Elektron Musical Instruments

On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 11:27:01PM +0200, Daniel Hansson wrote:
>    Just some short comments on this wishlist...
>    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.

I agree totally. I think it's very important that you guys put ease of
use first; there are far too many interuments out there that are way
more complicated than they need to be. Ease of use and an incredible
interface make the MD such a "live" instrument. I in no way want to
sacrifice this characteristic, as it's one of the main things that
attracts me to it.

>    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.

You could just have an open source OS. users can compile in the features
they want :-)

>    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.

I agree. and that's why I think Elektron should develop a dedicated
step-sequencer! the same interface as the MD, but beefed up, polyphonic
and many-parts multitimbral :-)

>    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.

agreed. if it can be implemented in a simple, easy to use way though it
would be great!

>    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. but I think you could still do it; it just might not be as
clear as in the MM. for example, if the user just sets a parameter lock
with the VOL=0 for that step, then don't trigger anything new and just
change the other parameters as indicated by the lock. which is actually a
pretty simple/clear way to implement it, to me. why else would someone
set VOL=0 with a lock?

>    Does it really hide so much of the parameters now that it disturbs?

well, I'm just picky :-)  there's just that odd occasion when you're
tweaking the lower 20 values of the PITCH, AMD or DIST parameter and you
can't see what the hell you're doing (but can't exit mute mode). that
doesn't occur often, but it does occur.  I think it would be clear
enough to just put a bold "M" next to the kit number (there'd always be
space there, since the kit numbers only take up three characters). that
and the LED's above the track buttons are enough to indicate that you're
in mute mode, I'd think.

>    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.

maybe just show the knobs of the value(s) currently being tweaked and
leave the rest as values?

>    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.

make an FX machine and assign it to a track. then have each page of the
normal drum menus (for that machine) correspond to the parameters for
the FX engines. so the synthesis menu would be delay, the effects menu
would be reverb and the routing menu would be compression. (this assumes
nobody wants to lock EQ values). the trigs would have to all be empty
trigs (they don't make sense otherwise, do they?).

>    Where would this be displayed? Would you really take your time to edit
>    the
>    names?

yes. it's embarrassing to un-mute that crazy loud-as-hell, high-pitched
rackety noise when you meant to un-mute a high hat :-) so a small
description of it would be a nice feature.

but you're right, I don't know where you're put the name at. maybe a
little pop-up box when you select the track? the box then goes away
(completely) the moment you turn any knobs.

>    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.

yes! I'll still be 100% happy with it if you never update any features.
(and anyway, I'd prefer more machines (preferrably EFM) in an update,
over features.) and you're right; nothing can make everyone perfectly
happy with its features. so compromises must be made.

Thanks for sticking around and talking to us, Daniel!  What other
company does that?

Joe