Elektron Machinedrum reissue in black, Elektron pls

The Lounge General Discussion
#80

I think you’ve got the wrong guy. I complain about B for sure, but mostly cuz they act as if it’s theirs with 0 credit to the originator.

The point I was in fact making was to the point of @roger ‘s post, he was saying that Elektron isn’t as big as say…Roland. So to clone the old chips may be outside of their capability. But as big as Roland is…they don’t either.

And I don’t agree with Roland cloning their own. It’s done halfway, and it’s backward thinking. I like it when they innovate not stagnate.

Sorry man. Nice attempt. But ya missed the mark.

1 Like
#81

“Machinedrum MkII: SNAKE OIL!?”

4 Likes
#82

And regardless. As far as Roland cloning their own gear…ITS THEIR OWN GEAR!
They can do as they wish with it. B is literally biting other peoples designs. So you are missing the point entirely. Im sure B would be CHOKED if someone cloned a product of theirs. And I don’t mean a clone of a clone…I mean one of their own designs.

1 Like
#83

It’s not just ripping off not-in-production gear that gets people annoyed at Uli, but this has absolutely been beaten into the ground and there’s not a lot of interest in the actual reasons so enumerating them to less-curious isn’t going to change that loop :smiley:

1 Like
#84

LFOs are not just dumb free running LFOs, but function generators capable of a wide range of modulations. Whoever is saying the Rytm doesn’t need them clearly doesn’t use one for exponential amp envelope, one of the greatest tricks of the Rytm to make up for its not-very-snappy envs. Once you use that, you’re out of LFO, so you can’t add other types of movement as easily, as automatically.

To say “oh classic drum machines don’t have lfos so who needs them” on an elektron forum is also extremely rich. The whole point of Elektron machines for most as opposed to Rolands or others is that they go outside the range of traditional drum machines. So that is just a totally moot point

1 Like
#85

Please send your Behringer comments over to the appropriate thread so that those of us with Important Opinions That Must Be Heard don’t have to mute this one too. :innocent:

4 Likes
#86

image
image1200×1171 232 KB

11 Likes
#87

lol the B clones are even further off the look and feel of the originals than the Roland Boutiques are.

#88

Yeah like only having one LFO per channel on the AR.

Let’s be real, when most people talk about “the Elektron workflow” they’re talking about the sequencer and plocks/trig conditions, not how many LFOs they’ve got.

I don’t think it’s a moot point at all, because a big part of what makes the Elektron sequencer so great is that it makes you think about movement and variation in a completely different way than using LFOs or other, more traditional modulation sources.

Anyway, this is a really odd thing to be arguing about.

3 Likes
#89

  1. Sequencer and many LFOs are not mutually exclusive, so idk where you’re getting this either or dichotomy from.

  2. Listen, i think people are engaging in a counterproductive exercise by asking for a Machinedrum reissue, and i’m trying to steer the conversation in a productive direction by pointing out what makes the Machinedrum (which I’ve owned) special, and what I’d like to see from it in either the current flagship (which i own) or a future machine. Jumping in and yucking everyones LFO yum by saying the Linn drum didn’t have one or whatever, is just contrarianism. You don’t like LFOs, many others do. So what good is your opinion there? I’m trying to be constructive, you’re just being dismissive and defending the status quo (which is a very easy job to do).

#90

It’s at least a relatively constructive tangent!

The point of the workflow is modulating parameters, and LFOs give options for additional counter-rhythms and timbre, both of which I’d say work well with drum machines. HOW many LFOs are right and good, well. I guess I don’t use all of them on my Norand mono :smiley:

But I also like a “drum machine” that’s more semi-restricted synthesizer than traditional.

2 Likes
#91

With all endless threads like this, I have a sudden question.

Can anyone with expertise evaluate a cost of designing and creation of something like clone of Machinedrum/Monomachine using contemporary processors, boards & materials?
Hardware costs, assemblage costs, programmer’s time, Q&A, etc.

Just curious what are the figures nowadays. Like, what is minimal, what is realistic.

#92

Beyond LFOs as well, as someone who’d like to own a MD, what sorts of engines are we lacking for with the subsequent offerings?

#93

It’s sort of a moot question.

Anyone could make a programmable drum machine.

If you’re trying to reverse engineer whatever embedded DSP code… you may encounter issues with licensing (even gaining access to the proprietary libraries to compile) and FOSS publishing of the code.

The magic is in the programming, less so the hardware. So you might as well start over from scratch!

#94

Imagine that all copyright issues do not exist or settled. And the functional requirements are known.

What are the lowest/median/top bounds to create such a product with a good quality, let’s say, in a small batch?

#95

I haven’t read the whole tread but if you look how Waldorf recreated the 1989 ‘microwave’ into the new ‘M’ a new Machinedrum would be possible. So it’s just up to Elektron :robot:

#96

It’s the range of the machines on the Machinedrum that make it special to me. Going from physical modeling to FM to VA to samples, with all of the unique parameters to each of those machines that can be simultaneously modulated. The engines in Model Cycles, Tone, A4 etc are wonderful, most of Rytms are serviceable and some excellent. It’s about having the right combination of sounds, modulateability, and then all of the Elektron goodness that they have maintained and improved such as the sequencer. I’m not saying the subsequent machines aren’t all great. But as others have mentioned, they’re not one stop shops like MD and MNM, which is a shame sometimes.

4 Likes
#97

Or I just have a different opinion to you.

Honestly, you’re taking this way too personally/seriously.

Also, I quite like LFOs, I just don’t think that they are the main thing that makes one drum machine better than another, especially when the two drum machines in question are both excellent, if quite different.

Also, I fucking hate Status Quo.

Worst.

Band.

Ever.

2 Likes
#98

For a small batch, why not take an existing mature hardware platform (IDK, Norns?) and build an interface around it?

What would make your theoretical MD project functionally different beyond trying to create algorithms similar to the MD’s?

I’m not trying to be snarky so much as define the problem.

There are plenty of homebrew options available to do just this on lines, Modwiggler, etc. The magic is in the workflow and brilliance of the engines at the time. You’d have to not just emulate but transcend, and the money is best put into joyful coding, the hardware engineering is going to be a buzzkill and supply chain is monst’rously crap these days.

1 Like
#99

Person: Sorry everyone, X reissue is probably not going to happen but in the interest of being constructive here’s a list of the thing’s that in combination i think make X special and would like to see again

Fin25: Yeah i never got the fuss about Feature 1 out those 3 features that you claim are special in combination. After all, most drum machines dont have feature 1. All a drum machine needs is (core feature that you can already get from current models).