Hi
Is it possible with the A4 that track 1 are sequencing the pitch of the osc and another track are sequencing the filter cutoff frequency of track 1?
yes, trigless trigs.
EDIT: I just re-read your post. You want track 2 to control the cutoff of track 1? I THINK that’s possible, but I’ve not tried. Why not just p-lock everything in track 1?
Yes, i want track 1 to play the pitch and another track 2 to control the filter cutoff freq of track 1. Possible 
For what purpose are you trying to separate note sequence and the cutoff automation? You can sequence both the notes and the filter on one track.
I think he wants to play a different chromatic note sequence on the filter cutoff (not just filter keytrack) than on the oscillators. If so, then having a note-based sequenced modulation would be nice.
With the internal routing capabilities of the A4 this is perfectly possible; just set the 2nd osc on the next (neighbouring) track to N (input from previous track) and turn osc1 off.
This way the output of the filters from that track will be routed to the next track (e.g. track1 to track2).
Then on the 2nd track set the filter keytrack to 32 (100%) and tune the cutoff to some base pitch. This way you can play a different note sequence on the filter than on your oscillators (track 1 plays the osc pitch and track 2 the filter cutoff).
This of course means you are loosing one track (in the sense of uniting track 1 and 2 not using oscillators on track 2).
You will however also be able to achieve that with a single track by utilizing parameter locks on the filter cutoff, though it might get a bit tedious since you have to tune the filter cutoff for each note individually.
If playing the filter cutoff chromatically is not your goal and you just want to add expression to the filter cutoff than this is what parameter locks are there for anyway.
The only reason, I could think of, for wanting to control different track parameters of a single track with two tracks is to step the locks of one parameter and slide the locks of another, if that isn’t the case then it just seems wasteful.
Perhaps you could go into more detail so people could understand the “why”.
One pretty obvious reason to have the cutoff sequencing and notes on different tracks would be because the different tracks could have independent lengths and therefore the cutoff pattern would happen relative to different notes each time. I do this kinda thing a lot on other gear, tis groovy.
1 Like
There we go 
Thanks Smoof. Ill try this asap
That doesn’t strike me as being obvious and surely that could get a bit random as time goes on, some of which will work and some of which could suck.
If you want some variety you can copy the pattern a few times and programme the exact cutoff pattern you desire and preserve a track (which there isn’t exactly an abundance of) to make greater use of.
Maybe I’m too anal to get the virtues of the random but I feel Elektron sequencing is about absolute control.
I find Elektron sequences pretty static but then I prefer mine to be evolving, changing within programmed limits, forced to scale, randomised in every way… I like pattern directions to change, speeds and lengths to vary, velocities and lengths to accumulate. I like sequences that have a probability of masking or repeating a note, or playing a different note entirely etc. etc. I could go on (and often do). 
i find by just using the filter → envelope send and the LFOs you can pretty easily get evolving and organic sequences.
although i agree, it would be neat to have some “non-linear” sequencing features. however, just last night i essentially accomplished this by accident since if you modulate the filter 1 cutoff frequency all the way down, then you can essentially randomize when triggers play. of course, you are limited to the sounds you can get this way since you’re hacking a random trigger mute using the filter cutoff.