A4 Midi Sequencing Rev2

Elektron Gear Analog Keys/Four
#1

Currently, I use a digitone to sequence my Prophet Rev2 8 Voice Desktop. It is the only sequencer I have found that works & that I enjoy using. I sold my old Analog Four mk2 so I could buy back a digitone. It is great for sequencing 8 voices on the rev2. love it for that.

I am finding that I no longer use the digitone as a synth. Although I like the sounds, they are pretty hard to fit into a mix with the analog rytm and rev2. maybe that’s just me, whatever, im not a big fan anymore.

I don’t remember if i ever tried too hard to make midi sequencing work on the A4 when i had it, but as far as i know, each of the 6 midi out tracks only have 4 voices per step, right? is there a way to use multi-map mode in reverse, to sequence 4+ polyphony with one midi controller via A4’s tracks in realtime, without manually entering in 4 notes on one track and then the additional notes on an additional track? I just want to use my Launchpad to play chords and record those chords to the A4’s midi tracks, which send that midi out to the Rev2.

If money wasn’t an object, i would just buy an A4 MK2, but I can’t really justify that at the moment, especially when I am only using half of the digitone. Seems like an expensive midi sequencer, although the pyramid would be about the same price i guess. But ideally, I can sell the digitone, buy the A4 mk2, and that could be my sequencer.

Is the Analog Keys any better in this regard? i may also be on the fence about that. I like the portability and look of the mk2. I am worried that the overdrive and bass on the mk1 would not be the same. I dont really need a keyboard, even though the Keys prices are better than an mk2, and it’s pretty big for my already crowded desk. I am intrigued by what some describe as a “creamy” sound from the mk1. but the overdrive, qper knob, angled lightweight build, and bass synth patches were big factors in how much i enjoyed that synth. so if anyone has opinions on that issue, that may help as well. the main issue is midi sequencing though. if nothing else, i suppose i could use my mk3 lpp, which is not ideal

#2

I have a similar set up, and have tested a similar approach, using;

  • A4 mk2
  • Digitone
  • Rev2 desktop
  • Peak

…and, whatever way you split it, the Digitone beats the A4 hands down when it comes to sequencing the Rev2 and Peak.

I do agree that the sound of the A4 sits really well with the Rev2, and I find the Peak sits well with the A4 and DN.
I think you would probably come back to the DN’s sounds at some point if you just used it for the seq at the moment… it’s just sooo versatile in its sounds I can’t imagine anyone not using it.
Sounds to me like you may be a future candidate for the ‘sell/rebuy the Digitone club’. :sunglasses:

1 Like
#3

i already am. this is my second one

that’s a good point, and unfortunate for me. I think i’m gonna give it a shot. have you ever tried sequencing either synth with the A4 or just not worth it?

#4

I have tried it yes, but it just frustrated me and slowed me up compared to doing it in one of the available DN midi voices.

I know people have said about being able to use the CV channel of the A4, but I found myself asking ‘why am I bothering?’
I understand if you wanted to just use the A4 and another synth to keep it minimal, and I did that but changed my control arrangement to;

T1- A4 duophonic voice
T2- A4 mono voice
T3- A4 mono voice
T4- Peak

This felt the most intuitive to me, and I could live with 3 A4 voices without feeling I was losing out (esp with p-locks, etc).

I still much prefer the form factor and work flow of the DN to do it though.

1 Like
#5

An alternate thought: I’ve been using Max to supplement the Rytm + A4’s midi sequencing.

With Rytm, you get 48 possible notes on a track. Add to this every pattern spits out a program change value between 0 to 127.

With these two values, you can give each track in a pattern up to 48 discrete user-definable chords of any voice count. Ie. Say AR sends a program change message that Max receives, to then load a table of 48 chords. You then send “-24” out, and Max then intercepts that value with [coll], to then spit out whatever corresponding chord you may want to send Rev2.

That said. This doesn’t change the fact that you don’t have discrete control over whether you’re trigging the internal voice or external, which is why it’ll ultimately be more of a frustration than not, imho.

2 Likes
#6

yeah that sounds good to me. i think i’m realizing that i actually dont mind using my launchpad pro mk3 to sequence chords on the Rev2. any evolving intricate patterns with <4 notes of polyphony can be done well enough on the a4 as needed. but im kind of getting the a4 to take that role anyway.

i have decided that i need an instrument with the sound design power that the a4 offers with its sequencer and all of the incredible analog tools they added like overdrive and fm along with the very powerful envelopes and lfos, qperf and plocks/sound locks. I can sync the octa to my launchpad & then have 4 separate midi tracks that i can sequence with 8 notes per step/micro timing/probability/8 patterns per track with 32 steps each.

i do like the digitone, and i think it excels when i take it with me, away from my desk and focus solely on it. pushing it to make the most out of it’s 4 tracks to build an entire song, which it does very very well. but when i take that composition home, i cant do anything with it. it can be a “digitone only” track, but it doesnt work with the rytm, rev2, my more organic field recordings on the octa. im sure people make it work and are better than me at mixing it in. but i almost never use overbridge, i record the stereo output from my octatrack of the live ‘performance’. So for that, the Analog Four would be the best option, i think.

I can take that same approach, singling out the A4 and using it to make incredibly meticulous evolving patterns with 4 separate simultaneous tracks, but with much more powerful control over the sound, a sound that fits with my other gear. i can actually ping the filters, make it crunchy, use noise for percussion, heavily saturate everything, use noise as sound design tool, use analog fm for textures. so it’s just a matter of 2 different sound engines. if the A4 had the midi side of the digitone, it would be easier to make the decision. i start to feel sort of limited with every elektron synth after some time and then i inevitably miss it and buy it back, which is what im doing with the A4 now.

you’re right, i probably will miss the digitone again in about 5 months. but for now i have the A4 bug.

thanks for the advice

#7

Hey, does anyone know if it’s possible to use Rev2 split mode and then sequence patches A and B on separate MIDI channels? Or are they always tied to specific parts on the keyboard, so I could only control which patch is playing by entering notes in a specific range?

#8

I don’t think that works internally.

with an external keyboard which can “split” you should be able to control the tracks independently.

not sure about the voicing but you could try to set them individually to “rotate” or something, maybe just with 2 voices

1 Like
#9

In the Rev2 Global settings you’ll find Multi-Mode. Turn that on. It causes Layer B to respond to the MIDI Channel equal to +1 over the value you set for the main MIDI Channel option (ie Layer A will be on the channel you chose (n), Layer B will be on n+1). Mine’s currently packed away or I’d test this for you.

There’s a bug/weirdness: if you set the main MIDI Channel to 14, then Layer B will respond on MIDI Ch1, and if you set it to !6, Layer B responds on Ch2. This confuses me and could easily clash with other gear, so I’ve taken to always using the Rev2 on a lower channel (so that even the +1 channel isn’t as high as 14).

[UPDATE]: Some other thoughts on this:

  • might be better to turn off Split mode, so you have access to the full keyboard range on both channels (engaging Multi-mode might have this effect anyway, I’m not sure)
  • You can’t choose any arbitrary patch for Layer A and Layer B. You have to send one programme change to set the overall patch, and then the Rev2 will pipe MIDI to the two layers. So you might end up needing copies of patches for different tracks. You have 512 patch slots, so I recommend using them. I set aside Bank 2 (for “two layers”) just to be Multi-mode patches. This means it doesn’t matter if I have 10 patches that are all the same Layer A but different Layer Bs… I still have 100s of other patch slots in other banks for non-multi sound design
  • The patch copy & paste options are a little weird… IIRC you can copy a patch to a chosen target layer, but it’s fiddly, and it’s been a while since I did it. You might need to plan your patches ahead and make use of the Swap Layer A/B function
  • It seems like it’d be great to use Main Out for Layer A and Alt Out for Layer B. If you plug jacks into all the sockets, the Rev2 will automatically split Layer A and B out through the desired outputs. However, if you leave those cables plugged in, and return to patches that don’t use splits or multi-mode, you get weird things happening like the first half of the voices going out of Main out and the second half of the voices going out of Alt. This can be very confusing if you turn down/off the Alt channels at your mixer :laughing:
  • this is probably better dealt with in the Other Gear section, rather than the A4 section of the forum
2 Likes
#10

Hey Octagonist, thank you so much for this in-depth answer! Bottom line for me is, that the Rev2 doesn’t seem to be made with this in mind and it takes a lot of effort and may cause problems. Very insightful knowledge notheless!

#11

Hope you found it useful!

I disagree that the Rev2 “wasn’t made for this”… the fact it has multi-mode and responds to two channels, and has two sets of outputs suggests to me that it was designed for this purpose. I just think they made some compromises in the design that left it being harder work than some of us would like. Possibly, it makes more sense with the desktop version rather than the keyboard one because you’d use that more as a “receiver” than a “sender” anyway :smiley: There’s another user on this forum I’ve spoken with who’s quite happy with the multi-mode operation (and IIRC they have the desktop version).

2 Likes