The Model Samples is Dead
Long Live The Model Samples 
3 Likes
you can stick your cup to the ms with the stickers
4 Likes
Still Not D.R.E.
3 Likes
Because my brain is categorical I would also clarify that âAbandonwareâ is not at all the same as hardware being feature complete and no further firmware development ongoing. Itâs a different context entirely!
I have always understood âabandonwareâ to be a classification of software alone, in the same vein as
- Freeware
- Shareware
- Payware
- Trialware
- âwarezâ (piracy offshoot term generally referring to the scene where cracked versions of payware are distributed)^
The âabandonedâ portion of abandonware referring to the developers being defunct and thus in a general gray area solely due to the IP not being legally pursued, not the software receiving no further updates. It is mostly used for old PC games, whose smaller, indie developers last far less long in operation than console megacorps which maintain and generally revive IPs from long dead consoles.
^Describing wholly in the context of software subculture and ethos, not endorsing anything beyond!
11 Likes
Thatâs sure but not nowadays, every machine got evolution, imagine the m:s without the soundlocks
I do not want to sound like I know better but 400 euros for a Model:Samples is not exactly âentryâ level hardware when stuff like Pocket operators or Korg volcas exist.
Actually would say it is midrange price point.
It is closer in price to stuff like mc-101, sp-404 or Circuit Rhythm/tracks than to the Rolcas/volcas/POs.
Yes midrange price, not cheap
With all its stupid hard & soft limits, faulty quality and update abandonment M:S still has good name? I don`t think so.
Yes.
yes.
yes.
It was designed with known limitations, i only have one avoidable issue with hardware, and while i should email about one specific bug; âupdate abandonmentâ is a bit dramatic of a complaint.
I remember you had complaints with the button panel when they first were released, that was resolved not long after.
But they didn`t resolve vanishing letterings problem. And Power Handle BP-1 is not yet in stores.
Ah, so youâre trolling.
Thanks, bye.
3 Likes
I think itâs a misconception that software updates to hardware products are gifts for existing users. They arenât. They are there to improve the value proposition and sell more boxes to new users without the cost of developing new hardware.
M:S and M:C wonât get as many updates as the more expensive boxes because of their market position. They are cheap entry level boxes and will continue selling to people in the ÂŁ200 market without additional features, so thereâs no need to add any. In fact developing the entry level boxes too far would nullify the upgrade path and may risk cannibalising sales of the more expensive boxes.
Itâs always best to buy based on current feature set and not expect updates.
6 Likes
This seems to be a controversial topicâŚ
I do not have a M:S but I did purchase a M:C about a month ago.
I think the instrument is really beautifully made with attention to details⌠It does not feel cheap or faulty to me. I would say quite the opposite, the build seems sturdy, the little screen shows cute but thoughful animations when you turn the encoders for various parameters and the layout is very well-made giving you direct view of what is controlling the tracks, the sequencer, and the whole mix.
Compared to the Volca that I have, it looks way better, and is much more fun to play with as a standalone device.
From what I gathered online, the M:S is based on the same hardware and interface as the M:C. I can see why people may feel like there are limitations. But it is important to seperate the limitations put in place by design and the ones that feel âarbitraryâ.
The models both offer very direct controls of parameters, with most of the track parameters being tied to one knob per parameter. This limits the amount of parameters and features to add to the instrumentâŚ
I can only think of two âarbitraryâ limitations:
-The portability only officially supported with the Power Handle which was recalled. It feels bad because the instrument is marketed as a portable âout of the studioâ groovebox. I asked the support about using a 3rd party battery and they recommended me to use only the official Elektron Power for the M:C.
-The T1-T6 pads which are very stiff and hard to control with unfixed velocity. This is a big one because Elektron went out of their way to add Velocity Modulation, and I think the Models are the only Elektron products with velocity sensitive pads, so it is a bit of a shame that they are impossible to play. I also asked the support about it and they said they planned on adding a personal Sensitivity setting in a future firmware update.
For fun, I explored the menus of my M:C a bit and there is space to add an extra line of parameter in Track menu, LFO setup menu, and Retrig menu. Maybe they plan to add some things there?
7 Likes
End of thread, people. Elektron does plan some firmware updates. Itâs just that the Models are not a high priority compared to the other boxes (probably)
7 Likes
Three sensible, reasoned, balanced, posts from @MurkyFreddery, @chuchu and @craig sum things up nicely.
Maybe anyone still dissatisfied should go over here ?
5 Likes
worth saying that every single manafacturer says âonly use our official power supplyâ because otherwise they are reponsible for absolutely any crazy reverse polarity/power starving/steam engine attachement someone thinks is a good idea, but that probably doesnât mean that it runs on special magical unicorn electricity that canât be replacedâŚ
5 Likes
You are right. I was just pointing out the fact that currently Elektron is not providing any official support for the portability of the instrument, even if it is still marketed as such. For myself, I had no idea that the power handle was cancelled when I bought the product.
1 Like
yeah, this does seem more than a little frustrating.
such a shame the power handle met itâs demise. it would have been great.
2 Likes
Dont say such things.
Otherwise you will be called troll here.