all i know is that i’m glad i waited to buy OT. i really like the new design, but the original one would work just fine and presumably used prices will come down.
1 Like
Before I purchased my first OT I had been waiting for like 1 year thinking about it. 
Finally when I got it I knew I should just buy it earlier. It was a waste of time.
1 Like
Same gray chassis… that’s funny
1 Like
Sigh… 
So please inform me on what else would be a solid reason to purchase this OT MK2 minus the OLED screen and audio headroom? Assuming you already own the OT Mk1, or thinking about getting one. It looks great! From a functionality standpoint I’m not seeing the benefit. I would rather have 8 outputs via OB vs a new screen, button layout and headroom (which is an easy work around if you know audio).
Just sayin…
Yes… finally a chance to build a wall of octatrack.
4 Likes
I’ve tried this before, and been frustrated by the fact that I have to commit a hand and eyes onto a (soft) knob to do it, especially when that setting is on a Setup menu that CANNOT be assigned to CF scenes.
The only way I can get close is using 2 or more PU machines (each listening to input and each other in round-robin setup) and use scenes to change the (master-loop’s) LENgth setting (for slave loops). This requires a free hand and triples the # of steps required to do what I got used to doing on the Gibson EDP+ rack looper.
I’m specifically interested in doing that form of hands-free with a single “re-scale” button, the way it work for me on the (20-year old) Gibson EDP+.
Specifically, you re-define loop-points (and length) by performing them, punching in and out, letting the loop grow (while overdubbing).
I described (and documented) the process on another PU-machine thread here.
That should help clarify the “one-touch/realtime” distinctions.
My present work-around is described on my post on PolySampling, here.
I see how the LEN parameter is useful for working with multiple PU machines w/ OT as clock master, but thing become a mess outside that narrow setup.
I guess the (admittedly ambitious) Elektron-style solution would be one of 3 approaches.
The first two would expand the PU machine’s PlayBack page to add a new control to knob D (presently blank) to automate or change apparently-available behaviors. The other two are pie-in-sky ideas for entirely new machines.
- PickUp Loop ReMultiply, with settings in a range of [1/16, 2/16, 3/16…1/2…1x, 1.25x, 1.5x, 1.75x, 2x, 3x etc ] which would default to a knob-center of 1x. Changing this setting could multiply-lengthen OR divide-shorten the loop at each passing (as the existing Multiply does), but now it can could grow, shrink, and keep up with the polyrhythmic options of the OT’s sequencer Scale.
- PickUp Loop SyncReference, which sets PU machines to either sync to each other in Master/Slave to set Clock Master, or set them to be triggered by the Track sequencer, with their Record/Playback lengths determined using the Scale setting like you do for every other machine’s trigs ! While hitting a Trig in Scale mode sets the END point, perhaps Shift+Trig in Scale mode re-sets the START point.
- Create a new “ReFlex” machine; like a “Flex with OverDub”…swap the Flex’s Knob A (Pitch shift) for ReRec mode, so that any (manual or sequenced) Recorder trigs could be set to [ New, Overdub, Replace ] to change the style writing to memory over whatever is playing back. (no Multiply/Divide needed if it could re-trigger with P-Locks
- create new PutDown machine: a PU machine (with over-dub/etc) with Start and End points from the Playback page (no DIR necessary).
Thoughts ?
3 Likes
Sorry, too many posts, too tired to read all the lines tonight… 
I’ll have to play the OT for awhile and get back to you. I like the idea of putdown machines, though 
Y’know the DSI guys said something similar sometime ago about the limits of the Tempest but, despite the (apparently hideously complex) firmware being officially “done” for a while, they’ve been able to continue gradually mopping up issues, including a release as recently as last week.
I’m going glass-half-full on this one and assuming the Elektron’s coders are better at their craft than when they last made a major Octatrack OS release and they might have an inproved toolchain as well. Roll on, chaps!
Are the images of OT mk II real or just rendered?
The reason I ask is has anyone noticed that the screen just looks like the old one, just different color? As in look at the circles, they are the same largely pixelated as mk I, not highly detailed as in the Digitakt OLED?
I would have thought the new OLED with high resolution of OT mk II would have rectified this obvious pixelation in the characters displayed?
Is this the final screen on production units I wonder?
1 Like
Picture having a 100x100 pixelated image on a shitty screen, it looks shit. Now use that same image on a better screen. Still looks shit. The screen being better doesn’t mean what it’s displaying is going to be better, if they don’t change the firmware the UI should still look the same, just with better contrast and viewing angles. That’s what up here I think.
8 Likes
That’ll be because the bitmap display is driven by the same software as the MK1…
both screens use the exact same pixel array size … it’s just that the rendering is nicer (and larger) on DT … the MKii uses a smaller display area but same pixel count, so higher ppi may look crisper
2 Likes
Gotcha.
Was under the impression the pixelation was shown due to a limit in resolution in the screen, and thought that a higher resolution screen would naturally display more rendered detailed graphics.
Didn’t realise the display was part of the software also.
A shame it can’t have the higher rendering as in the DT
Sorry just trying to understand completely.
What you are saying is the screen pixel count is the same between OT mk I and 2, even though new one is an OLED?
That makes sense as to why they look exactly the same pixel wise?
1 Like
Thanks for clarifying
Had in my head the new OLEDs had higher pixel counts also
Can see now DT circles more detailed due to the fact the circles are larger on the screen
1 Like
Quite an illuminating image, I had assumed the DT screen was higher res but it turns out the OT’s is just more information-dense.
Yea, when you look closely, there are key differences.
Look at the typeface on the small “S” characters on the DT.
There are live pixels that only touch the corners of other pixels there to create more of natural, curved S.
Where as the OT (and MD, and MM) have a more maze-style, blocked S.
Same goes for the "A"s
The DT typeface appears to be one pixel wider overall.
Easily noticeable in the “V” character.
3 Likes
