Coming soon


I hope so! Sure, I can sequence the longer patterns on my OT, but it’s more fun to sequence locally.

Save my OT midi tracks for midi mapping the song Banks and p-locked arps

Edit: once A4 and DT get track scaling, then all 16 power tracks can go to VSTs and MD crazy rhythmic nonsense :heart:


sigh — I’ll guess go ahead and add a serious two cents, as I don’t believe I’ve seen this particular framing presented:

Unless I’m mistaken, the A4 came at about the same price as the OT without conditional trigs. The AR then came at a higher price than either of them with conditional trigs. Then the A4 got conditional trigs (1.22) but not the OT.

Now, I’m not excusing the delay in bringing conditional trigs to the OT (I honestly have no clue what all was involved in making that happen), but I do question the decision to arbitrarily (without explanation) bring something I’ve been ardently requesting for years to a device at a third the cost of what I paid, etc.

To be clear. I’m not seriously offended. This hasn’t stopped me from making gratifying (at least to myself) music, but it is something I find confounding at present.


There was a recent comment about coding new features somewhere. Something to the effect of, “If RYTM can do X, then just add some code so it can sequence external gear” It sent me down this rabbit hole of thinking. There’s so many things at play in these devices, i imagine people over simplify it when thinking features can be implemented.


Granted, the way multiple lengths per track is implemented on the OT, seems like it could be implemented on others in a very similar way.


You are mistaken.

Both the AR and A4 MK1s got conditional trigs in concurrent OS updates.
AR OS 1.22
A4 OS 1.22

Three years ago.


My apologies. I was mistaken, indeed.


no over simplification. merely said that there are computers in the the A4 as well…for like the sequencer. SO with that…its not outside of the realm of possibility that something could be added.
providing there is space, time, similar procs and available functions [as the foundation for all the seqs is most likely similar [it may be possible]].

NEVER did I suggested that it would be something trivial or something they’d even want to do. :wink:



No clue why it only just came back to me, as I know I’ve thought of this before:

Direct change. I can see how this would cause issues with implementing independent rate scaling, and if I were given the choice between the two, I would absolutely choose to keep direct change.

We are all good. :stuck_out_tongue:


What logic are you seeing where independent track scaling might interfere with direct change?


Sorry for the delay. I’m currently battling with why my intuition has lead me to believe that independent track lengths don’t upset relations in phase, but independent rates would. Hmm.

I swear, I feel as though it’s been on the tip of my tongue for the past 10 minutes, but hasn’t been forth coming.


All good :smiley:


Alright. I think this is gonna be it for tonight - this was a devil of a question (for whatever reason):

The way I’d imagine legato switches (direct changes) are achieved is by a processor calculating (looking at) all patterns simultaneously and soloing (for lack of a better term) whichever is selected.

As I can’t say why I imagine differing independent (non-global) rates being calculated simultaneously would be impossible, I’ll simply say I can see where it would vastly complicate things.

Apologies if none of this is at all coherent.


As far as I see it the re-introduction of an “old” feature needs to be done somewhere and since they were working on the to-be-released-soon device they started there. Seems logical to me.

Additionally: With the OB2 development still ongoing the OSes of the older devices are still a moving target. Introducing new features while still working on another large (feature like Overbridge mode) is much more error-prone, so it make sense to do it not in parallel, but one after the other. Since the new device doesn’t support Overbridge mode it make sense to re-introduce it there. Again: seems logical to me (as I’m a software developer myself).

When looking around almost no company provides useful updates to their devices. Most companies don’t even provide bugfixes, but want you to buy their next model to get stuff fixed.

That’s the sad reality we live in. Am I happy with this? No, but I vote with my wallet.

It doesn’t matter how long a feature already got requested for a device. When it’s not there in the beginning (and wasn’t promised like OB2), then that’s what you have bought. There is no type of entitlement for anything. You can ask for it and it may be given to you, but all of this takes time and then it’s still a freebie of the company doing so.


The only point that matters…:blush:


Yeah I’m a bit perplexed by the way this topic is discussed. It’s like it’s taken for granted that feature requests should be implemented, and that there’s this sinful component to one machine having a feature another one doesn’t.

When I bought the DT I never expected that anything other than OB and bug fixes was on the horizon. The additional functionalities that have been added was a cool bonus.

I also think you make a good point about OB development not needing added layers of complexity right now.


I here what you’re saying.

The real quandary of it is: if the MS is supposed to be the ultimate budget box of Elektron(the midi not even designed to send CC values) why input the R&D and development investment for the individual track scaling? Out of all the units to do it, why that one? If not implementing it can lead you to to charging $25 less per unit and thus make it even more inviting for the demographic you’re seeking to reach out to, why include it?

Like I’ve said before, I wasn’t previously irritated by the lack of inclusion of Ind Track Scaling on my other devices- I just figured, for the idea of the unit, it didn’t fit what they were aiming for.

But since the MS is like a bare bones direct Digitakt without sampling and extended midi capabilities, why include this exclusive feature within it?

I’m not jealous of them, if I had it I’d probably rarely use it. It just doesn’t make sense to me


I had quite a bit of fun using a stereo widening plugin on the single mono channels coming to Ableton from the DT via OB last night. Somewhat unrelated, but Overbridge really does offer any machine using it an infinite amount and of possibilities and extension of the machine. Granted it might not be OTB, but you can get your 10 LFO’s if you really want them.


I guess the M:S is simply a test bed of the re-implementation. As I wrote: you need to start somewhere …

Only the future (when OB2 development has settled) can show if it is really an exclusive feature or not (not counting OT, of course). I sincerely believe it’s just a starting point.


To me it’s normal new gear will include new features that older gear may not have, even lower priced gear. That’s 101 development in software, hardware, anything really. Whether it can be retrofitted back depends on the flexibility and capability of the older gear and willingness if the vendor to do it. Often it is not financially feasible to do do. Newer gear will have newer more advanced features.


Obviously, but why the old neglected feature on the new budget machine?

It’s that absence arch that raises conflict