Elektron Musical Instruments

If the MonoMachine could have just *one* thing changed, I would make it 
how the MIDI tracks channels are assigned in the globals section.  I 
would take it out of there, and make it a track parameter that could be 
changed per step.

*that* would be wonderful.

Tony

...so which parameter would you choose to remove then? //d

--- In elektron-users@yahoogroups.com, Tony Scharf <tony@...> wrote:

>
> If the MonoMachine could have just *one* thing changed, I would make it 
> how the MIDI tracks channels are assigned in the globals section.  I 
> would take it out of there, and make it a track parameter that could be 
> changed per step.
> 
> *that* would be wonderful.
> 
> Tony
>

Ideally, you wouldnt loose any - there would be a second page with just 
one parameter on it.

Not having that, I'd give up C4.  For myself, velocity, PB, MW and 2 
controllers is already more modulation that I am going to send to a 
single device.  Plus, in a larger midi system (like I have) getting 
around the 6 track barrier, and having the channels set in the pattern 
(rather than having to deal with only 8 global slots) would be beyond 
worth it.

even if it was a static setting, and you couldnt sequence the channel 
assignment, having it in the pattern rather than the global menu would 
be a huge convenience.

Tony


daniel_elektron wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> ...so which parameter would you choose to remove then? //d
> 
> --- In elektron-users@yahoogroups.com 
> <mailto:elektron-users%40yahoogroups.com>, Tony Scharf <tony@...> wrote:
>  >
>  > If the MonoMachine could have just *one* thing changed, I would make it
>  > how the MIDI tracks channels are assigned in the globals section. I
>  > would take it out of there, and make it a track parameter that could be
>  > changed per step.
>  >
>  > *that* would be wonderful.
>  >
>  > Tony
>  >
> 
>

I absolutely need C4 and everything else.  Per pattern might be  
interesting, but I'd want to be able to override it with a global  
somehow...

On Oct 31, 2006, at 12:21 PM, Tony Scharf wrote:

>
> Ideally, you wouldnt loose any - there would be a second page with  
> just
> one parameter on it.
>
> Not having that, I'd give up C4. For myself, velocity, PB, MW and 2
> controllers is already more modulation that I am going to send to a
> single device. Plus, in a larger midi system (like I have) getting
> around the 6 track barrier, and having the channels set in the pattern
> (rather than having to deal with only 8 global slots) would be beyond
> worth it.
>
> even if it was a static setting, and you couldnt sequence the channel
> assignment, having it in the pattern rather than the global menu would
> be a huge convenience.
>
> Tony
>
> daniel_elektron wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > ...so which parameter would you choose to remove then? //d
> >
> > --- In elektron-users@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:elektron-users%40yahoogroups.com>, Tony Scharf <tony@...>  
> wrote:
> > >
> > > If the MonoMachine could have just *one* thing changed, I would  
> make it
> > > how the MIDI tracks channels are assigned in the globals  
> section. I
> > > would take it out of there, and make it a track parameter that  
> could be
> > > changed per step.
> > >
> > > *that* would be wonderful.
> > >
> > > Tony
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>

If you have a larger midi setup as you say, you probably have a midi 
interface. Just change the routing in your midi interface and you 
will 
have no problems. I use 3 8x8 midi interfaces and have a huge midi 
setup but I just can't really understand the point of being able to 
change midi channels per step. Perhaps that's just me though.

I'm really happy with the monomachine as it is. The only things I'd 
really like to see is the ability to swap machines and their tracks 
within one pattern and perhaps an expanded clipboard. When preparing 
to play live, I have to spend a long time going through copying and 
pasting machines all over the place in order to get a consistent 
layout (drums on track 1+2, leads on 3+4, bass on 5, effects on 
6...etc). Yes I could just improve the way I compose, but I'm too 
lazy :)

An expanded clipboard would allow me (hopefully) to keep a couple of 
chords I programmed on one step in a buffer. Then I can go through 
and paste those on various steps to build up nice arpeggios from 
them. My MV-8000 has a feature like that called midi clips and it's 
great!

None of these features is critical though...I enjoy my mono more 
than anything else in my studio just as it is already.


--- In elektron-users@yahoogroups.com, Tony Scharf <tony@...> wrote:
>
> If the MonoMachine could have just *one* thing changed, I would 
make 
it 
> how the MIDI tracks channels are assigned in the globals section.  
I 
> would take it out of there, and make it a track parameter that 
could 
be 

> changed per step.
> 
> *that* would be wonderful.
> 
> Tony
>

Do we have to really sacrifice one of the MIDI parameters? Couldn't the  
midi channel number be just a single kit parameter that cannot be  
modulated and so that it would stay static thru the pattern. Like the  
joystick, velocity and keytracking settings for the internal MnM machines?  
This way only 6 numbers per kit would need to be stored (if the storage is  
the issue here...)

Of course this has the limitation that the midi channels for each kit are  
fixed, but the again it would be a huge improvement compared to the  
current one.

Other thing as Tony already mentioned would be to add a new kind of midi  
track parameter which would be like the other midi track parameters, but  
it could be only set per pattern and would stay fixed. It couldn't be  
modulated, slided or param lock'd (who would apply lfo to midi channel  
number anyway).

Or, the CC4 could go. However, it just happens that microQ has 4 dedicated  
custom cc's to be used in the modulation matrix. Now it fits perfectly  
even though I've never used more than 2 params per microQ patch... :) I  
think that G2x users would have something to say about this, too.

There is a potential problem with the per-kit or per-pattern midi channel.  
The cc's like the midi channels are currently assigned globally. So  
basically we would need to have either also the cc's defined per kit (not  
good) or per pattern or have some kind of "midi instrument definition"  
which would map the correct cc's for each midi channel.

So instead of table of 6 fixed midi channels with fixed cc's that we have  
now you would have a table of 16 channels (midi parts) and fixed cc's for  
them. And in the kit/pattern you would be able to choose the midi channel  
and the cc's used are then taken from the table.

BTW, with these assignable midi channels you would be able to write  
polyphonic patterns with overlapping midi notes. Currently it's not  
possible.

But definately a huge +1 from me. For controlling multi-part instruments  
this would be a blessing. I have microQ, SN2 and Virus so in *theory* I  
should be able to control 40 different parts at a time ;D

- sampsa / texmex

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 22:21:47 +0200, Tony Scharf <tony@...> wrote:

>
> Ideally, you wouldnt loose any - there would be a second page with just
> one parameter on it.
>
> Not having that, I'd give up C4.  For myself, velocity, PB, MW and 2
> controllers is already more modulation that I am going to send to a
> single device.  Plus, in a larger midi system (like I have) getting
> around the 6 track barrier, and having the channels set in the pattern
> (rather than having to deal with only 8 global slots) would be beyond
> worth it.
>
> even if it was a static setting, and you couldnt sequence the channel
> assignment, having it in the pattern rather than the global menu would
> be a huge convenience.
>
> Tony
>
>
> daniel_elektron wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> ...so which parameter would you choose to remove then? //d
>>
>> --- In elektron-users@yahoogroups.com
>> <mailto:elektron-users%40yahoogroups.com>, Tony Scharf <tony@...> wrote:
>>  >
>>  > If the MonoMachine could have just *one* thing changed, I would make  
>> it
>>  > how the MIDI tracks channels are assigned in the globals section. I
>>  > would take it out of there, and make it a track parameter that could  
>> be
>>  > changed per step.
>>  >
>>  > *that* would be wonderful.
>>  >
>>  > Tony
>>  >
>>
>>
>
>