I’m maybe considering upgrading one of my Elektron boxes from mk1 to mk2 and was wondering: which current Elektron machine has the biggest difference between the mk1 and mk2 versions?
I currently have a Digitakt, Digitone, Analog Four, and Analog Rytm — all mk1. Only my Octatrack is already mk2. (Oh, and my Machinedrum to be exact)
I’d love to hear from people who’ve used both versions: which upgrade felt most worthwhile to you, and why?
Or just don’t upgrade any and buy a syntakt instead?
digitakt 2 - mostly the same but with stereo (and more overbridge outputs ) and more options amongst the tracks. (not fixed to 8 audio, 8 midi)
analog 4 mk2 - mostly the same but i think the sound/ bass is better ?? , case / buttons are better
rytm mk2 - mostly the same but i think sampling , audio is better , case / buttons are better
digitone 2 - much more polypony , much better sequencing, more tracks, lots of QOL improvements.
syntakt - theres a lot of overlap across what youve already got.
all - imo - unlikely to get any substantial updates except maybe Digitone 2
personally - id probably get tonverk in a few months , assuming those features fit what you need,. mostly due to polyphonic sampling, FX configurations…
the digitone 2 is the biggest step up (IMO). the digitakt 2 is maybe more of a mid-level step up from the OG. the analogs are mostly just cosmetic (same features, operating systems etc) with i think only a few functional differences (cant remember what tho).
i dont own any of these any more and its unlikely i will in the future, but the DN2 would hands down be the one that i would get again if i were that way inclined
If you’re composing entire tracks with the elektron sequencer at the heart of your setup then upgrading one digi device to the most current level makes perfect sense.
only ever used otmk1/2 and ar mk1/2 and ot mk2 was much better in terms of ease of use for me - armk2 was better due to direct sampling and improved fidelity otherwise the same
fwiw, these statements [regarding AR MKii] somewhat surprise me, not from a prior critical listening perspective but from a nugget of info i gleaned from somebody within … as, unless i misunderstood, the sonic ‘guts’ of the mk1 are essentially there, the same, in the mk2 with the exception of the additions
this might have been an oversimplified statement, but i have always taken it as read that the pair sound the same with the same settings … i’m not suggesting your eyes are telling your ears lies, i’m only noting my surprise fwiw, i’ve also never read similar anecdotal feedback before either
as for the topic, i’d say the digitone 2 is perhaps more of an evolution, but wrt the specific question i’d likely want the syntakt for variation ahead of an arbitrary mk2 (as in, i wouldn’t pick something based on how much it had been beefed up, but rather from which device spoke to me from demos or which current one was my go to and in particular if the interface was demonstrably better (the latter of which point would bring the analogues into the equation))
my final parting comment (to op) would be if you are sorta asking for hints/justifications then perhaps this speaks to a lack of true need … so, maybe it’s best you don’t get any of them, or try something completely different to all of them
For the analog 4, having the individual outs seems like a good plus to me. For the rytm i would benefit from being able to sample directly into the machine.
From the mk1, the digitakt is my least favourite machine.
Basically i just love the analogs more then the digi’s. But the digi’'s seems to have improved the most with the mk2
ageing of electronics of course :-/ … but it’s not gonna be because they look better though - but the grey OT Mkii most definitely does look better imho … ergo it sounds better
Any particular reason? That’s actually a very good question. If i wanted to answer a bit ironically i would say: to feed my Elektron buying addiction. But in fact i never buy a piece of gear without knowing it will add something to the “sonic pallet” or improve workflow. That’s basically the reason why i didn’t upgrade any of them yet i think: not convinced that it will add enough extra on that regard. But i asked the question to see if i was missing out on some things. Maybe some were more of an improvement then i imagined.
In these kinds of discussions, I always shout out the internal resampling on Rytm mk2.
Rytm is kind of defined by its limitations. One filter per track, one LFO, the dual VCO synth engines can only be accessed on tracks 1-4, etc. But since the mk2 has internal resampling, you can simply record what you’re doing and continue working on it in a new track. Really opens up all kinds of possibilities for the machine as a standalone music-making device.
Yeah I think it’s underrated as a synth, between the analog tracks, the sample layer, and resampling, there’s a lot you can do with a little pre-planning.
I don’t think it’s been mentioned yet that the ARmkii pads are an upgrade as well. And on A4, the mkii overdrive sounds significantly better. I haven’t used the mki but there’s a cukoo video where he demonstrates them side by side.
A4/AR mkii look way cooler than the mki imo vs the digis which pretty much look the same between 1 & 2.
On the other hand if you’re keeping the mki as well, getting the A4mkii makes sense to add 4 more voices.
Agree, Rytm is super underrated as a synth. All of the dual VCO engines sound awesome, especially with some overdrive on top. But the fact that the dual VCO tracks are also the kick/snare/clap tracks means you really have to be judicious about how you allocate them (if you’re on a mk1, like me).
… as, unless i misunderstood, the sonic ‘guts’ of the mk1 are essentially there, the same, in the mk2 with the exception of the additions