Yeah on that side, that’s cool. Still I think having a mode where you have like 8 vertical par or similar which show few letter + a value associated with each would have been helpful. But touch sensitive encoder are a good stuff !
You mean the number of page of thing to control is not a lot ? A bit like a Model Sample ? If yes, then indeed the UI feedback is less important. Because of some muscle memory.
I would have thought that there would be quite a lot of parameters to modify and lack of UI element would make it confusing. A la Yamaha Seqtrak.
From what I remember only the analog Rythm mk1 and the Octatrack mk1 had received such big update and seen as legacy.
On the Digitakt side, I guess there won’t be update because the DT2 is not a MK2, it’s… a really more powerful beast…. But let’s see !
Honestly it’s a bit hard to describe. It’s a combination of the limited features which it absolutely is but also the logic of the design. I honestly have not used anything so smooth before. Sitting down with it it just felt very intuitive to move through everything and I felt like I got a pretty complete overview of everything in about an hour without looking anything up. Only thing I had to look up was quantisation (shift + step 16).
Playing with parameters of synths will obviously give different parameters if you use very different macros from preset to preset. However this can be standardised as well if you like. I usually go for a semi standardisation but it’s also not such a big deal. And again the design of the UI is quite clever in my opinion. Like volume is just the same pot all the time and then you press whatever you want to adjust and hold while turning.
I don’t know if I’m describing it well. Can just say that I was very surprised by how easy the flow of the instrument felt. Very different from Push 3 where I really felt like I had to design the instrument and workflow from scratch myself. Which is also great but obviously a very different thing until you get to a place that flows smoothly
It might get firmware updates but they will be to fix bugs or iron out creases.
Digitakt 2 has the features it has because of changes to the hardware and codebase that has allowed for it, it is v2, it has superceded v1. Otherwise there would be no purpose in it existing.
I also don’t see the benefit in Elektron updating an old product to compete with a new product when they already have a new product that has the features that would theoretically be added to the old product. It’s vaguely nonsensical.
The comparisons with AR, A4 and OT don’t hold true, they are a ‘MK2’, mostly about updating the form factor - the MK1’s get most of the same updates because they are not different versions of the product.
Digitakt II isn’t Digitakt MKII, it’s an important difference.
It does make sense for me.
I mean in the longterm.
If it does not cost a lot to the manufacturer to update an old product why not ? And it make him a good publicity and a fan base.
That overtime push people to return again and again to the brand because just… They like that brand.
For example in a similar topic, look at how beneficial for Akai the JJOS was in the long term. Ok not supported by Akai. But it make the mpc 1000/2500 legend ! And this return as beneficial for the brend. I might have just not looked at the mpc live if the mpc 1000 was not that great
And JJOS has play a role in that !
I was referring to the octatrack and analog rytm. DT’s 1 and 2 are on different firmwares because they are essentially different machines built upon different architectures, hence why DT2 is not DT mark 2
Reading the specs of Move, it seems more like a competitor to Roland MC101 - 4 tracks, resampling, effects per track, huge preset library etc.
In my experience with the MC-101, it was a fun little device to jam, but when it came to ‘real deal’ like playng live set or controlling external devices via MIDI CC, it just dotted the i’s that DT is a real musical instrument and MC-101 is a nice fancy toy.
Because they have already replaced that product with a V2. This isn’t a case of simply maintaining an old product, what you’re suggesting is updating a superceded product with the features of its replacement. Besides what you’re asking for is unlikely to even be possible - they released a V2 because they wanted to add these features, if they could have been added to V1 then they wouldn’t have needed a v2.
Nope, it was not what I meant to say, and it’s probably impossible to do it anyway. Because DT2 had another ASIC added to the motherboard to provide more cpu power.
What I am trying to say, if you read between lines, is sometimes there is a code base which are share between platform. For the DT1 and DT2, we can easily suspect it’s the case, because it make sense. And if you have a feature which has been written on one platform and it can be pushed on the old platform without a prohibitive cost.
I mean if it’s not cpu intensive. So for example forget about new filter, but Euclidean sequencer why not. Then it might make sense.
I really guess there won’t be update on DT1. But who know there might be some. But if there was, it will be marginal.
Because the product is 7 years old. So you can add few features. But can not add major stuff. If you look at rythm mk2 vs mk1 there is quite a lot of difference between both in hardware and software. Still they have allowed themselves to say… yeah let’s bring it to the mk1 as well. It will make our user happy. And it was 10 years old product…
My guess is that it’s highly likely you will then encounter the ‘pattern change 1 bar late’ issue, which already exists between (some ? most?) elektron boxes with mis-matched lengths.
That’s fair, and I would like to see the same too - however I suspect that most, if not all, of the improvements with DT2 are enabled by the improved hardware and changes to the interface.
If they make a tweak to the reverb algo, for example, that is purely ‘cosmetic’, then it would be good to see those changes reflected on both devices, I suspect, however, that this will account for very few, unexciting changes.
