Anyone prefer working with part-per-pattern machines (eg DT/DN)?

My first Elektron machine was an Octatrack, which has “parts”, ie. kits of sound settings that can be used over multiple patterns. When I got a Digitone I saw it’s lack of parts as a major limitation. I’ve been really surprised that I’ve come to PREFER one part per pattern. I can see now that it was a deliberate design choice, making it faster to create ideas. I usually create a pattern, copy/paste, replace or tweak the sounds (esp. with Control-All, which can RADICALLY change the vibe), then repeat the process. It’s such an easy way to create sections of a composition that are musically related but sonically distinct. Curious if anyone else prefers this way of working?

With drum machines/samplers, I prefer the kit-based approach. But when it’s a synth with four tracks like A4/DN I never wanted to load up the same four synth sounds as a kit. Horses for courses, tho :slight_smile:

1 Like

I went the opposite way so got used to the DT/DN method first and actually find that a lot better.

Starting on the OT and getting my head around having to set the Part deliberately, but only having 4 per bank was confusing at first. Now I find the way I use the OT it doesn’t actually matter to me that much. I just spread things out and copy/paste patterns on the DT/DN if needed so they all line up when using pattern linking.

Definitely getting very good at the copy/paste shortcuts for all the units.

1 Like

Curious enough to read the previous, extensive discussion?


The thing that makes one part-per-pattern so successful on the DN is the fact that, despite the 64 step sequence limit, you can make one pattern musically self-sufficient using trig conditions, probability, and polyrhythms. You don’t have to do a lot of chaining to make a complete musical idea. So each pattern change can be a new part of the composition, with completely new timbres.


Indeed! Thankyou