So, I was doing a 30 minute set a few months ago. I broke down and decided to try out song mode to make sure we didn’t go over our time. I ended up really enjoying it. I loved the flexibility, and in a way, kept our live set quite structured. So… I just sat down to work on expanding this to one hour with a bunch of other patterns. I look at the list and it has 98 rows. I add one and then can’t add another one. Look it up and discover, yep 99 row limit. Well, you all know this well, but I’m confused why a device with 400MB RAM can’t manage 999 rows? I mean, there is even space to the left of the row numbers to display 3 digits without distorting or reflowing the existing layout of the UI.
Please please please lift this cap. If I’d known this, I might have made the prior 98 rows more efficient. I am basically doing a lot of mute automation which is gobbling up rows. I’m so profoundly bummed ATM.
So, aside from asking for an enhancement request, I’d love your perspectives on this… Should I just make multiple songs here and switch from Song A>B>C etc?
…or you can just make 2 “songs”, and go smoothly from your song with 99 rows to the new “song”, that can also have 99 rows. I wouldn’t see a problem in that if I were in your position… but i guess my head needs that kind of organization where songmode is used with “songs” instead of “sets”.
I meant to return here and say the same thing. I using a single “song” to make one very long continuous composition. And yes, easy enough to play song 1 to 2 etc. I wish the end row offered a song menu so that I could make it automatically jump between songs.
A set mode feels a bit like using the M8, at first thinking “What’s the point in tables, I’ll never need that level of granularity” then finding yourself using tables, auxiliary tables and wishing your table rows had tables. I feel someone will always hit a limit with these things and those limits are often a good thing.
I meant to reply earlier. Thank you for the insight. Of course, this is meant to construct a single song. Haha… I was indeed using a single song to make an entire live set. This is not a bad approach as I like to construct specific transitions this way. I suppose my request to elektron engineers remains… why not make it 999 rows? We have a fast way to skim around a large set of rows.
From now on, I will consider using one “song” at a time… Maybe we need a set playlist feature to stitch songs together?
Really? I’ve done a few sets, about 20 minutes a piece and close to the row limit, and I often found myself hitting Func + up/down from the song edit screen, which would add and subtract rows.
What is the better way to fast scroll, if you don’t mind my asking?
Curiously, a maximum of 200 rows, not 999 But the space was there in the GUI.
I’d love to see this all back, jumping and looping (even nested loops possible!) especially … awesome …
I think they’ve done a great job in the new mk2 boxes. There are some lovely additional features like section naming which can be the pattern name or a preset list of terms. About the only thing these new boxes don’t offer is row transposition.
Offsets in song mode…is the one feature I wish they had added on the OG Digitone. I make accompaniment tracks for students. The introduction to the track is typically the last 2-4 bars of the song itself. Currently, copy/paste/offset/set-length…the pattern to create the intro, which is not huge deal.
Offsetting patterns can cause unintended consequences. For example, it can cause micro-timed trigs to disappear, or cause LFOs running in free mode (where the latched trig is no longer operative) to misbehave. When I create new patterns for the intros to my songs, I typically have to perform a few tweaks (other than the basic offset) to get the intros to play correctly.
Which leads me to wonder if putting offset into song mode might create more issues than it solves.
One of the very few bad design decisions …
But the space was there in the GUI.