Elektron Musical Instruments

--- In elektron-users@yahoogroups.com, "tahvenaine2002" 
<tahvenaine@c...> wrote:
> Do your monostuff with this and polystuff with 
> cubase. Yeah yeah, I know cubase sucks compare to monosequencer.. :
( 
> Solution is to get to know cubase and learn how to use it (this 
> includes me too..)

Yeah.  This is how I worked prior to the monomachine - but syncing 
the MD and Cubase and editing the end result is a pain, and I was 
really looking forward to trying my hand at hardware only 
sequencing.  But I can't "try my hand" at it, only "try one finger at 
a time" six times over.

I bitched and moaned (for which I must be developing quite the 
reputation on this list) about not being able to send parameter locks 
to Cubase as CC's.  The MD's parameter locks are too many, and too 
fast to send.  So, in this sense the step/lock model is superior to 
MIDI.  But now I find that general MIDI is superior to MnM-MIDI?  I 
can't layer notes on one track of the MnM, and this is something even 
my C64 MIDI sequencer can do.  If 64k of ram and a 0.985 MHz 
processor is enough to handle 16 note MIDI polyphony, can't two 
modern DSP's handle this?  If the intention was to only have 
monophonic midi tracks, then they should have included CV outs, as 
most mono-synths used that standard.

The reason I'm complaining is to try to get enough people to agree 
that MIDI polyphony is important enough that elektron should consider 
including it in an update.

-gerald