Are we honestly debating slices and whether start/end points are the same or not again, the same discussion between the same two people we already had like 5 times on this thread and the OS update thread? We all know where this will lead and all the arguments have been posted several times now …
@Sherelle might be better served by studying this topic and if there are any questions left, return:
Thanks for leaving this as a reference we can point to when the discussion comes up again 
.
If @StuB and @stnrp want to further deepen that discussion, maybe it’s better to start a new thread about it and leave it out of the TV threads?
Edit: here’s the thread
Tomato, tomato.
You told an interested potential buyer it can’t do something it can do. Not really fair on the OP or the makers is it.
This argument is just wrong and several people already took their time several times to explain to you why. There’s several things you can do with slices that aren’t possible with start/end points. So if people are asking if it has slices and you tell them it basically can, it’s you who is misleading potential buyers because you won’t accept there’s other things you can do with slices that you’re not interested in personally. That’s fine for you, but not helpful for others.
That’s like telling somebody who wants to know if Syntakt is polyphonic that it is, because you can layer tracks or do MIDI loop. Most people who want a poly instrument won’t be satisfied by that though.
It also doesn’t help that you accuse people of “lying” for pointing out facts. That’s not how we shoul talk to each other here, we already have enough of that poisoning shit in our day to day lives.
Sure you don’t have a grid. If you adjust the start and endpoints to a satisfying spot, cue up the sampler and play what you selected. Do you have a slice of your source material? Could you then have subtracks with many of those slices in?
You can say to an interested party that’s TV does slicing but via a different method to previous devices and they might want to bear that in mind when making decisions. But you can’t say it doesn’t slice because it’s not true. It’s a reductive statement.
Okay, we’re getting closer to a constructive discussion.
Saying it can slice because it has start end points and accusing people of lying isn’t that helpful either and imo more misleading. If you want to give people an impression of what it’s like to do this on TV and help them decide whether that’s enough for them or not, it’s better to describe the workflow and its limitations.
How about this: TV doesn’t have a dedicated slice mode, but it can do a lot and this offers workarounds for some things people are using slices for. It takes more time though and has its limitations, so if slices are an integral part of your workflow and you don’t want to invest the time or use a PC, you might better get an OT or DT.
Workarounds for slices on TV:
Polyphonic sample playback
Sure, all good. IMO because of the depth of features that’s the sort of detail needed to respond to a new buyer query. Otherwise you’re doing a disservice to them.
Make slices and put them in a subtrack, or their own machine, or whatever you feel like experimenting with. That’s as difficult as it gets.
Describing it as not being something it was never meant to be by saying it’s ‘missing’ features isn’t really a just evaluation of a product.
It can’t qualify as missing if it was never intended to be there.
Did you even bother reading the response from the “new buyer” you didn’t want to do a “disservice” to?
This is what I don’t understand. It’s literally a function that makes a process more efficient so that time can be focused on other things. It’s also a function that doesn’t have to be used if one doesn’t want to use it.
Having this function doesn’t prevent anyone from finding “missing treasures.” It presents all potential “treasures” in immediately playable form so one can quickly determine what is “treasure” and what is not.
Unfortunately, all signs point to that not matching the philosophy behind Tonverk as it stands today. But it is available on Digitakt and Octatrack if anyone needs it.
Do all signs point to the Tonverk having permanent bugs and never seeing any additional features added? What if your assumption is wrong (misleading), and slicing is actually planned to be eventually implemented?
Relax. And enjoy getting (to) the soul of this machine. DT and TV are sibblings, each with strenghts the other doesnt have.
For me, DT is fluid with focus on making beats and tones (out of beats), the TV is with focus on making tones and beats (out of tones).
At least, this it how i feel about it.
With both you can get surprises and magic out of existing material.
For me the TV is also a little bit like the better DN for me personaly. I enjoy noodling on sample-mangle things and FX on these, instead of scrolling through 4 or 5 pages of a synth. This polysynth stuff i enjoy more the immideate experience at lets say my Minifreak or my modular, not only its more „i see everything whats going on“ but also i can use more LFOs and stuff or send an LFO or ENV to more than one destination.
I dont miss slicing on TV.
Timestretch would be great cause i want to be able to use stems of my other devices, at least for finishing and adding all elements of different sources together. But ok, as long as the TV is master, i can get it to work like this.
All in all i always have to remind myself: great music was done with a lot less than a TV offers today (in the 90s some one would kill for the possiblities a TV or a DT got) and instead of complaining i should use it and see where it leads me to.
The TV has some in common with the OT: everybody is like „hä? wait, äh, ah i could do this“ and its a fresh approach on making something on a device. Embrace this, sit in front of it and enjoy!
You missed my point—you can’t just state that slicing doesn’t match with the philosophy of the Tonverk because it isn’t currently there now. The Tonverk currently has bugs—that does not mean that bugs are part of the Tonverk philosophy.
Although slicing isn’t a major priority to me (I enjoy using an MKSREC1), I take issue with you telling other Tonverk owners that their desire for the feature is unreasonable, or doesn’t match your perceived philosophy of the Tonverk.
Hear hear
Probably will find out when the next box comes out.
It’s such a drag when things need to escalate so much over gear. It’s just gear and it’s really fun to make music with.
I do kinda take issue with any DTII vs TV arguments because they’re both amazing in different ways. It comes off a bit silly when I hear all the things DTII can do that the TV can’t without flipping it back to what the TV can do that the DTII can’t. It’s a disingenuine argument. There are great reasons to buy either or both. Or even something else entirely.
I bought the TV pretty quickly after release, having no illusions that it wasn’t fully mature yet. But from the get go, it had the best sound quality of any Elektron box to date, polyphonic samples is huge for me, higher track count, much more memory, more super interesting fx and new ways to use them as well as the first 256 step sequencer on an Elektron box. And some of this came with caveats. Pros outweighed the cons for me.
The weirder, more obvious issues like midi timing were things I had confidence would get sorted in short order. There’s a ton of things I wish Elektron would do on their modern gear, but none of those things are stopping me from making music now.
Aside from some of the obvious mystery quirks in the TV, the main things that top my wish list are page looping and more advanced time stretching.
I’ve been ignoring this thread and it’s kind of comforting to know it’s still a shitshow