Elektron Musical Instruments

Hi,

I thought that maybe other users should also comment for what they 
think of wislist, so that people at Elektron can see what we would 
prefer as group. Some ideas are not important if there are only few 
people who thinks it's a must. Maybe we could do a poll or something 
of MD ideas in the future (weight on the word future, as I think the 
MM is now first on the list).

On the MD wishlist I think that most usefull are:

Separate swing tracks (existing swing tracks can be convert to 16 
swing tracks, which all have the same swing).

Function + Level knob for changing the levels of another tracks. VERY 
GOOD IDEA, in my opinion. Usefull in studio. Not as usefull in live, 
because of degrade of overall volume.


Then I would like to explain my idea for MD:

Sometimes I miss a global resonant filter for md. You can do this by 
feeding main output to input and use input machines. Very nice, but 
you must hassle with output-configurations in the global menu. It 
would be perfect to have a new input-machine that takes the audio 
signal just after master effects (eq and comp) and goes trought its 
filter and SRR and other stuff and spits it out to main output. This 
way no hassle with output conf. Doable? Problems are delay and reverb 
send could do a feedback loop. Maybe there shouldn't be reverb and 
delay sends at all in that machine.

Then something to ask about MM:

There are no presets. Is it possible that some of us could have 
his/her patches in MM 1.0 presets, if they are good enough?

Toni.

on 9/17/03 2:05 AM, tahvenaine2002 wrote:

> On the MD wishlist I think that most usefull are:
> 
> Separate swing tracks (existing swing tracks can
> be convert to 16 swing tracks, which all have the
> same swing).

I like this...but please also add this:

1. slower LFOs!

2. consider changing the SRR (sample-rate reduction)
   to BDR (bit-depth reduction)...I would find this
   so much more useful, expecially in the context of
   a drum machine...does anyone else agree on this?


wondering,
aeon

These have already been discussed some time ago.
Probably they can't be implemented in the MD because:

> 1. slower LFOs!

Making LFOs slower at the current parameter values would change current 
patterns and kits.
But LFO=0 is available, the LFO simply doesn't run at 0

> 2. consider changing the SRR (sample-rate reduction)
>    to BDR (bit-depth reduction)...I would find this
>    so much more useful, expecially in the context of
>    a drum machine...does anyone else agree on this?

Again, this would change all kits in our MDs.

I could want these, but I bet that the guys at elektron are not going 
to make these changes.

On Wednesday, September 17, 2003, at 06:28  PM, aeon wrote:

> I like this...but please also add this:
>
> 1. slower LFOs!

I agree 100%, but I definitely think it should be a configurable option 
per kit (to prevent breaking the current stuff people have.)

> 2. consider changing the SRR (sample-rate reduction)
>    to BDR (bit-depth reduction)...I would find this

This would be amazing.  The SRR is ok, but it doesn't have much 
versatility (although I think that is primarily due to coming after the 
filters in the chain.)  Bit reduction would really add a lot, IMHO.

c.

--- In elektron-users@yahoogroups.com, aeon <aeonlux@c...> wrote:
> on 9/17/03 2:05 AM, tahvenaine2002 wrote:
> I like this...but please also add this:

> 2. consider changing the SRR (sample-rate reduction)
>    to BDR (bit-depth reduction)...I would find this
>    so much more useful, expecially in the context of
>    a drum machine...does anyone else agree on this?
> 
> 
> wondering,
> aeon

IIRC, back during beta I suggested they either change it to the two
chained together or switch it to bit depth reduction. I can find my
old posts about it here but I think the response to the suggestion was
in an email to me and that's archived or lost. If they wouldn't change
it while in pre-release I doubt they'd change it now.

- Ben

--- In elektron-users@yahoogroups.com, "tahvenaine2002" 
<tahvenaine@c...> wrote:

> I thought that maybe other users should also comment for what they 
> think of wislist, so that people at Elektron can see what we would 
> prefer as group. Some ideas are not important if there are only 
few 
> people who thinks it's a must. Maybe we could do a poll or 
something 
> of MD ideas in the future 

Good idea, if someone would administrate that it maybe could show
what features are most wanted. Also I would like to know if anyone
prefers the sticky keys or not. A poll is much better than if a
dozen people reply with one email each and say what they want.

> (weight on the word future, as I think the MM is now first
> on the list).

We plan on doing an update for the MD after the 1.0os is released
for the Mono.

> Sometimes I miss a global resonant filter for md. You can do this
> by feeding main output to input and use input machines. Very nice,
> but you must hassle with output-configurations in the global menu.
> It would be perfect to have a new input-machine that takes the
> audio signal just after master effects (eq and comp) and goes
> trought its filter and SRR and other stuff and spits it out to
> main output. This way no hassle with output conf. Doable?

This is the way we've set it up in the Monomachine, but it's nt
possible in the Machinedrum, because of the internal structure in
the DSP's.

> There are no presets. Is it possible that some of us could have 
> his/her patches in MM 1.0 presets, if they are good enough?

Yes, that would be great! But we need to make all sound generating 
things like the final 1.0 will be, so the patches will sound like 
they were intended when created.

Daniel

...but these changes would alter the sound for all MD users, and 
there would be many unhappy users whose patterns now sounds totally 
different!

Daniel

--- In elektron-users@yahoogroups.com, aeon <aeonlux@c...> wrote:

> I like this...but please also add this:
> 
> 1. slower LFOs!
> 
> 2. consider changing the SRR (sample-rate reduction)
>    to BDR (bit-depth reduction)...I would find this
>    so much more useful, expecially in the context of
>    a drum machine...does anyone else agree on this?
> 
> 
> wondering,
> aeon

How about a switch option?  Have a switch in the software to slow LFO 
and BDR in the corresponding box?  I know it's complicating the 
machine...  

I just realized last night the importance of fast lfo's in 
percussion.  I'm working with a clap and just turned everything like 
crazy.  I should post this kit...  I have had the MD for about a year 
and can't wait to get home. 

--- In elektron-users@yahoogroups.com, "daniel_elektron" 
<daniel@e...> wrote:

> 
> ...but these changes would alter the sound for all MD users, and 
> there would be many unhappy users whose patterns now sounds totally 
> different!
> 
> Daniel
> 
> --- In elektron-users@yahoogroups.com, aeon <aeonlux@c...> wrote:
> 
> > I like this...but please also add this:
> > 
> > 1. slower LFOs!
> > 
> > 2. consider changing the SRR (sample-rate reduction)
> >    to BDR (bit-depth reduction)...I would find this
> >    so much more useful, expecially in the context of
> >    a drum machine...does anyone else agree on this?
> > 
> > 
> > wondering,
> > aeon

--- In elektron-users@yahoogroups.com, "endlessnessisticman" 
<endlessnessisticman@y...> wrote:
> How about a switch option?  Have a switch in the software to slow 
LFO 
> and BDR in the corresponding box?  I know it's complicating the 
> machine...  
> 

Yes, switches could make everybody happy!

Maybe an extra page in the global menu where you can set:
- Lfo speed multiplier (1/2, 1/4 etc...)
- Sticky button's on/off
- SRR or BDR
etc..

Then the default settings won't change the kit's or the way it works.
Everybody happy!

Ronald.

--- In elektron-users@yahoogroups.com, "endlessnessisticman" 
<endlessnessisticman@y...> wrote:
> How about a switch option?  Have a switch in the software to slow 
> LFO and BDR in the corresponding box?  I know it's complicating 
> the machine...  

Well, I don't see a good place for that switch. It should be placed 
somewhere in the kit, and there is no good place for switches like 
this. we still have the zero-speed LFO though! :)

Daniel

I was thinking of a dot that could be in the kit in the lfo speed 
box.  It could be bottom corner for slow and top corner for fast 
(right corner).  Push the knob and press Yes to go up No for down.  
Getting complicated...  

How did you like Tokyo?  Was there this summer.  I like Osaka much 
better.  You gotta go there, better food too.

--- In elektron-users@yahoogroups.com, "daniel_elektron" 
<daniel@e...> wrote:

> --- In elektron-users@yahoogroups.com, "endlessnessisticman" 
> <endlessnessisticman@y...> wrote:
> > How about a switch option?  Have a switch in the software to slow 
> > LFO and BDR in the corresponding box?  I know it's complicating 
> > the machine...  
> 
> Well, I don't see a good place for that switch. It should be placed 
> somewhere in the kit, and there is no good place for switches like 
> this. we still have the zero-speed LFO though! :)
> 
> Daniel

>...but these changes would alter the sound for all MD users, and
>there would be many unhappy users whose patterns now sounds totally
>different!
>
>Daniel
>

Therein lies the problem.... there are a few things that just aren't 'right' 
about the MD. The excessive nature of the SRR for instance means that it is 
just too extreme too quickly. The LFOs also need to be able to run slower. 
In fact if we polled the users of the MD we would probably find a few other 
issues that really sould be changed for the good of the machine (I would 
sugggest that the Knobs being changed so that you press in for fine 
adjustment would rate highh on the list, along with placing the final volume 
control on each machine after the delay and reverb sends.. think about it 
folks!!).

So how about a patch converter program to convert old patches to fit the new 
architecture? This would allow old patterns to play as near as possible to 
the old ones. I'm sure any serious users of the MD would not object to this 
considering the potential usefulness of the update. Any users who really 
can't deal with it could just continue to use the old OS. In fact I would 
hazard a guess that most users would not object to paying a small fee for OS 
updates to make up for the development costs of such a patch converter 
(possibly allied to a PC based editor with extra features.. again, 
imagination is the only limit).

Anyway, this is just my 2c for your consideration =0)

thinking happy thoughts
amos

_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail on your mobile phone http://www.msn.co.uk/msnmobile

--- In elektron-users@yahoogroups.com, "amos luyk" <amosluyk@h...> 
wrote:
> (I would 
> sugggest that the Knobs being changed so that you press in for 
fine 
> adjustment would rate highh on the list

I'm sure you wouldn't like it if we changed the encoders to work 
that way. When you press down the knob most of the time you also do 
some steps of adjustment when it's in it's nonpressed position. The 
way it is handled now doesn't matter, because you were heading for a 
big change, and the small changes you get first doesn't do any 
difference. But if you would get a few big changes before you got 
down to the fine adjustments that would make the fine adjustments 
unusable. Not to talk about the changes you might get when releasing 
it. 

Also you have better control over the encoder when you do not need 
to keep it pressed down. This make better sense for fine adjustments.


Daniel

--- In elektron-users@yahoogroups.com, "daniel_elektron" 
<daniel@e...> wrote:
> I'm sure you wouldn't like it if we changed the encoders to work 
> that way. When you press down the knob most of the time you also do 
> some steps of adjustment when it's in it's nonpressed position. The 
> way it is handled now doesn't matter, because you were heading for 
a 
> big change, and the small changes you get first doesn't do any 
> difference. But if you would get a few big changes before you got 
> down to the fine adjustments that would make the fine adjustments 
> unusable. Not to talk about the changes you might get when 
releasing 
> it. 
> 
> Also you have better control over the encoder when you do not need 
> to keep it pressed down. This make better sense for fine 
adjustments.
> 

I guess you're right about this but one thing could be changed:
When I'm selecting a destination for the LFO I always turn the wrong 
way first. Maybe it's just me but to me they seem inverted.

Ronald.

My exact argument...

--- In elektron-users@yahoogroups.com, "daniel_elektron" 
<daniel@e...> wrote:
> --- In elektron-users@yahoogroups.com, "amos luyk" <amosluyk@h...> 
> wrote:
> > (I would 
> > sugggest that the Knobs being changed so that you press in for 
> fine 
> > adjustment would rate highh on the list
> 
> I'm sure you wouldn't like it if we changed the encoders to work 
> that way. When you press down the knob most of the time you also 
do 
> some steps of adjustment when it's in it's nonpressed position. 
The 
> way it is handled now doesn't matter, because you were heading for 
a 
> big change, and the small changes you get first doesn't do any 
> difference. But if you would get a few big changes before you got 
> down to the fine adjustments that would make the fine adjustments 
> unusable. Not to talk about the changes you might get when 
releasing 
> it. 
> 
> Also you have better control over the encoder when you do not need 
> to keep it pressed down. This make better sense for fine 
adjustments.

> 
> 
> Daniel

Maybe you can introduce a switch mode ? Like that we can chose by ourself
the mode we prefer...

> I'm sure you wouldn't like it if we changed the encoders to work
> that way. When you press down the knob most of the time you also do
> some steps of adjustment when it's in it's nonpressed position. The
> way it is handled now doesn't matter, because you were heading for a
> big change, and the small changes you get first doesn't do any
> difference. But if you would get a few big changes before you got
> down to the fine adjustments that would make the fine adjustments
> unusable. Not to talk about the changes you might get when releasing
> it.
>
> Also you have better control over the encoder when you do not need
> to keep it pressed down. This make better sense for fine adjustments.
>
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

> I'm sure you wouldn't like it if we changed the encoders to work
> that way. When you press down the knob most of the time you also do
> some steps of adjustment when it's in it's nonpressed position. The
> way it is handled now doesn't matter, because you were heading for a
> big change, and the small changes you get first doesn't do any
> difference. But if you would get a few big changes before you got
> down to the fine adjustments that would make the fine adjustments
> unusable. Not to talk about the changes you might get when releasing
> it.
>
> Also you have better control over the encoder when you do not need
> to keep it pressed down. This make better sense for fine adjustments.
>

I agree with you Daniel.
The Yamaha AN1X pots work the way amos has suggested and it's a real 
pain !
MD pots are better quality and could be better, but I still prefer the 
actual way it works.

Thanks Daniel,

I hadn't thought of it that way... I retract the request and feel suitably 
foolish... =0)

thinking happy thoughts
amos




>From: "daniel_elektron" <daniel@...>
>Reply-To: elektron-users@yahoogroups.com
>To: elektron-users@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [elektron] MD wishlist comments, question of MM and another 
>idea for MD (Daniel)
>Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 05:41:42 -0000
>
>--- In elektron-users@yahoogroups.com, "amos luyk" <amosluyk@h...>
>wrote:
> > (I would
> > sugggest that the Knobs being changed so that you press in for
>fine
> > adjustment would rate highh on the list
>
>I'm sure you wouldn't like it if we changed the encoders to work
>that way. When you press down the knob most of the time you also do
>some steps of adjustment when it's in it's nonpressed position. The
>way it is handled now doesn't matter, because you were heading for a
>big change, and the small changes you get first doesn't do any
>difference. But if you would get a few big changes before you got
>down to the fine adjustments that would make the fine adjustments
>unusable. Not to talk about the changes you might get when releasing
>it.
>
>Also you have better control over the encoder when you do not need
>to keep it pressed down. This make better sense for fine adjustments.
>
>
>Daniel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail on your mobile phone http://www.msn.co.uk/msnmobile