Quoted for ease
Q: "Is there any kind of set rules for what is included and omitted in the Digi line?"
Yeah, panel space and to omit anything that would be convoluted when it doesn’t have that. They should be more ‘focused’ and ‘boiled down’ without losing too much. To make something streamlined you have to remove a few things. It’s like minimalism in art or music - strip away what isn’t neccessary and focus on the core components. The result will be larger than the sum of its parts.
I think it stems from Elektron themselves, subtitling the Digitakt as a “Beat making powerhouse” on its product page, which is the obvious use case. But sure you can use it for anything you want. I use it for pretty much everything myself.
Elektron basically said that they did not cram all the features in the box because this would clutter the interface with too many options and losing its identity as a 8 Voice Digital Drum Computer & Sampler.
Basically, DT is more of an instrument within a band, it handles a role very well. But if you want a studio in a box, this is not it.
Elektron Digitakt:
Intelligent sequencing features such as 8 tracks of highly programmable midi, conditional triggers, micro timing, re-trigger …yet no song mode? Doesn’t make sense. Its like being given a fancy ice cream without the cone.
Chain mode is not a solution when you can’t edit a pattern after making a chain without the chain dissappearing. That is a serious frustration, sometimes we like to edit our sequences when they don’t sound right in the chain but why do we have to make the whole chain again?
but maybe you didnt get the cone because you ordered just the ice cream
Here ya go:
For me there is very little missing but there are a few well discussed tweeks that could be made to the sample editing that would imo benefit the more experimental side. I know they call it a drum computer but there is no doubt that a lot of people became interested in the Digi based on the more unusual demos at the time of its release, unfortunately many of these features are not as usable in real life as they appeared requiring odd workarounds or backtracking that doesnt fit the fast,smart workflow that exsists when using it as just a drum machine. It is a fine machine with seemingly no direct competitor(decent microtiming) but it feels like it wants to be much more, I supose what I want in the future is a Digitakt combined with the best parts of the Octa, dont imagine I will see it for a while though.
Strongly agree, Make a OT with DT is offtopic because the DT is formatted as a drum machine.
On the other hand microtiming could be more advanced#
because at the end of a time of use ,there isn’t more variant in the motifs …
Sarcasm mode See you all next week for the next installment of the Digitakt complaints and general moaning thread. We’ll be talking at great length about the lack of song mode, the endless disappointment of overbridge and the crying shame that it doesn’t have all the tools that Ableton does. End sarcasm mode
Seriously though, as much as customer feedback is important, the Digitakt is a limited (or focussed, stripped back, essential, choose your adjective) instrument. Try to see it for what it is, not what you want it to be, chances are you’ll be much happier as a result.
Toraiz is a bizzare hybrid of Lamborghini and pogo stick.
That is the funniest image cunjored by anyone in a long time 
I’m really not sure why people are so obsessed with having The One Self-Contained Box That Does It All. I get the appeal from a theoretical inspiration standpoint, I guess, but why is there an obsession with working in one modality when a variety of approaches complimenting each other can be so powerful and fun?
I use my Digitakt alongside Bitwig Sampler, PO-33, and Mannequin’s w/, (edit: forgot the Organelle too), all of which are recorders/samplers (to various degrees) that have different capabilities, feature sets and ways of working. Why this monastic attempt to work entirely within one box that must do everything or else it fails as a concept entirely? Why do we demand this from instrument designers?
Well put and I couldn’t agree more.
Agree, especially since quite often more options are just exhausting. Ask anyone who has ever struggled to work out what the hell their OT is doing and why, or sat in front of a blank Ableton project with a folder full of great VSTs and no inspiration.
this is the main thing I try to point out when asked why DT is not a copy of an OT, they are not the same instrument. DT is not an MPC or Ableton or Pro Tools, its a DT. In the same way how a Bass is not a Guitar and a Bari Sax is not a Soprano Sax.
Its so important to know exactly what you are buying and what role it will fill in your setup or else there will always be a feature missing.
Though I agree with your post, I’m one that would love just one almost perfect box. After an over complicated day, my enjoyment is simplicity.
“simplicity” and “does everything in a single box” seem mutually exclusive though!
I Don’t know about that, anything can be simple if you take the time to learn it.
Anyways I don’t want to derail a seemingly already derailed thread.
OK. I like the simplicity. But if I want to program a bass sequence, with my midi controller, I cannot use modulation wheel, neither pitch bend …
Worse, if I want to use my midi keyboard to play a simple lead, those informations are filtered out by the digitakt …
I’ve never seen something so frustrating. Is this limitation on purpose ? For creativity ? Use only note on/off, is it a limitation to be creative ?
I think I would have love the box otherwise, but this is too hard to make do.
I love my digitakt. The sound is so good that i feel like breakin it. And that’s what i do. That’s my limitation, while the digitakt is still running naked and free in the forests of Finland