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