I’ll bet my next paycheck its going to be a digi box format, and you upload different models onto it, kinda what Roland did with the plugout thing. It’ll probably be a subscription service too. 
I’m getting so weary of these “the old Elektron is dead 
” type posts. The Digitakt and Digitone are very versatile machines that are on par with anything the company has put out. If anything I would say they’re an improvement since they keep the soul of what’s great about Elektron while streamlining the workflow and making things even more fast and intuitive. Unless you’re creatively bankrupt the possibilities are pretty much endless due to how deep they go.
I’d say the fact that users focus on the marketing (I guess Hector was “edgy” and weird?) says a lot - an obsession not with the possibility to make music but with image. People want to cling to this lame “i’m a mad scientist making twisted techno beats!!” aesthetic which was helped by what…the fact that the old machines were harder to use? The manuals weren’t written well? You can do almost anything with their last four boxes, including the model series, and faster at that.
The grumpy old head negativity just grinds my gears.
17 Likes
I doubt the folks at Elektron even want to do reissues. They probably have ideas for new and creative projects which excite and motivate them way more. It’s like hoping the Wu-Tang Clan will make Enter the 36 Chambers again- just not going to happen.
4 Likes
I dont agree.
The first 3 elektron boxes are modular in nature. You get X number of tracks, and can load different machines onto those tracks, configure them how you like. Incredibly flexible.
The newer boxes are fixed architecture. Nothing like the old ones. Sure the sequencer has improved, possibly the UI depending on your preference.
Personally I like the manuals. Very well written.
5 Likes
he was saying if you buy all the last 5 boxes together you can do what you could with MD + MNM theoretically.
3 Likes
The new machines are nowhere near on par with the old ones. You can prefer one or the other sound-wise but the architectures are completely different. For example the fact that you can use all the LFO’s on one track on the MD alone makes it so much more flexible and IMO interesting than DT or AR they’re simply not comparable.
The internal routing possibilities and separate outputs are another big difference.
Then there are machines like “control all” that are modulatable, also the effects are much more interesting and have tons of character, unlike on the new models.
Someone wanting these functions doesn’t equate to being bankrupt creatively.
MNM also has got so many unique things that are missing from all the other machines.
edit: The AR does have individual outs but not the routing and modulation flexibility of the MD, not even close.
4 Likes
I’ve owned MD/MnM/AR/A4/OT over time.
The scenes and performance macros on the Rytm blow the MD out of the water as far as modulation potential is concerned. It’s just a different way of approaching modulation.
Same as for the A4 vs MnM when it comes to synthesis.
I’m going to flat out refute that there’s anything ‘missing’ from the newer machines. They’re different, yes, and obviously focused on improving performance potential over the old machines.
They’re easily at similar levels of sonic creativity, just through different means leading happily to different results.
2 Likes
Another reason why they won’t be making any more of them, now that everyone’s got a shit load of modular gear.
When they brought out the old boxes, they didn’t have to compete with the open ended and super flexible world of modular gear. What seemed amazing to the average buyer in 2006 will probably be met with comments like “yeah, it’s cool, but I can do so much more with my modular” these days.
3 Likes
The perf macros and scenes are a totally different approach than what the MD has going on. It’s a matter of preference. Personally I like the MD approach more in every way. I like modulating parameters more than endlessly tweaking macros to get something cool going on.
For many ppl the new machines work better, no doubt about that.
Still, to say that the Rytm blows the MD out of the water is nothing but an opinion.
I sold my Rytm bcs I found it to be way too limited for what I want to do and I haven’t regretted that decision one second, quite the opposite really.
The “AR feature request” -thread is very telling of the situation collectively, it really blows all the other feat. request threads out of the water. 
edit: As for the MNM A4 comparison, not really comparable since the A4 is only subtractive synthesis with some FM and AM capabilities, and the MNM has almost everything but granular. This is not to say A4 isn’t a great synth but that that’s not a very convincing argument.
1 Like
Perhaps you want to wait for a Bonomachine or Bashinedrum, or perhaps Elektron will come with new stuff anyways. Who knows.
But I would not bet that they make a reissue of old boxes. You might underestimate the costs of developing that.
this OLED screen hurts my eyes in dark settings, why couldn’t they go authentic red squinter?
*NeoElvis69
2 Likes
I am an electronic engineer, and a chip being discontinued doesn’t necesserilly mean there is a better one that does the same thing.
Of the times where there is a new version, even if it is by the same manufacturer, the layout and functionality could well have changed. If it is a similar unit from a different manufacturer, the entire implementation could have changed.
That’s a big project if it’s a lesser component and you have all the engineers that designed it still there. If it’s a major component, you could be close redesigning the entire product from scratch…
…in which case you might as well create a new product.
9 Likes
And, let’s be frank, on a new Machinedrum we would certainly expect a few of the new boxes features to be present, starting with Sound banks, retrigs and microtiming…
7 Likes
A million LFOs vs scenes and performance macros. Trig conditions that make the Digitakt a generative machine vs the modular nature you refer to. No individual outs, but you have Overbridge which some people prefer. This is all apples and oranges. Meanwhile control all still exists and the old effects having more “character” is just a personal preference. I think they sounded dated and awful.
Point being the Machinedrum and MNM were amazing, totally, but the new machines are forward thinking and powerful in a different way. Then again all of their boxes are distinct from one another. I think this notion that Elektron is some dying company that’s lost it’s way is really ridiculous.
8 Likes
Personal preferences for sure. Apples and oranges definitely. I don’t see Elektron as a dying company at all, but it’s clear that the direction is towards more intuitive and streamlined machines that are IMO boring compared to the MD, MNM and OT trio.
You can use the control all machine on MD like perf macros with the added bonus of that being also modulatable and get the conditional trigs and micro-timing with the MCL. Also the new FW is making it so much more than it used to be.
It seems to me judging by the AR feat. request thread that many users are missing tons of functions and that really shoudln’t be the case with the flagship model, I mean one LFO with one destination hahaha, the same cannot be said about the MD users to my knowledge. They seem ecstatic!!
I was very disappointed with AR mk2 and believe me I didn’t want to accept that and tried to convince myself it’s not so bad. It sounds fantastic but paled in comparison with the old machines in my view.
I’m starting to repeat myself so that’s all I’ve got to say about this. 
3 Likes
I would like many LFOs, proper song mode, and many flexible machine options. Those are timeless features that are not exclusive to “old head” thinking. I love most features Elektron has come up with since, but jeez, is it really crazy or outdated to expect these very integral building blocks of Elektron synthesis, on an Elektron synthesizer?
I hate performance macros, scenes etc. I don’t have all day for this stuff. Once i do programming work, i let the synth do the work, i’m not trying to remember a bunch of pressure sensitive macros personally. There’s just no comparison to the many LFOs.
And there is not some giant technical hurdle to this, no one needs to dig up any graves or generate obsolete panasonic chips out of thin air to add the old features that are extremely usable and musical, and fairly generic on their own
2 Likes
I would agree with the first three paragraphs. LFO’s are essential and quick to use. I also hate the idea having to do those annoying tricks to get anything non-repetitive going on.
1 Like
Best implementation of Scenes is Octatrack IMO. Very quick to setup.
Yet so easy to forget 
I really love MD CTRL-AL + reload combo, it never gets old, to me.
I like AR Scenes and Perf, they are rather quick to setup compared to Parameter CTL machines in MD. The Perf encoder was a brilliant idea, being able to tweak the delay and the track settings at the same time is pretty convenient.
4 Likes
Those are all brilliant concepts and its great that there are many methods/machines to choose from. As for the AR, the scenes are a good choice for that machine, utilising the pads and all but not a substitute for LFO’s be any means.
I love the CTRL-AL too. it’s very often a good way of finding new dimensions from any kind of patterns and sounds. Things that I wouldn’t do otherwise begin to happen, often in a very positive sense.
1 Like