Yeah, I get it that people want perfectly mixed music sometimes.
Personally that’s not really my thing, I’m still listening to DIY classics.
2 Likes
Realising you have to do this for a single FX return should have been the first thing you thought of, as an audio engineer.
3 Likes
If you don’t want these limitations best to use a DAW and a plugin like Battery.
Much more powerful
2 Likes
I always ask myself this question when I get obsessed over hardware limitations,
“Did James Brown have it?”
3 Likes
Allow me try again and politely answer your question…
To get what you are asking for they would need to put 8 different fx engines in there…
This would require more code, more processing, and more money which was not the aim for DT…
You can’t isolate the wet of one track because since fx are master, wet=fx from all tracks.
Mixing the wet fx signal with one track signal would give you a dry track mixed with the fx of all other tracks…
Only way around this is 8 engines, as said above…
One work around with the current situation is to record one track at a time, along with mains for fx, so that the recorded fx are only applied to the track being recorded… You’ll still end up with a dry track and an fx track so any further processing would have to be applied individually to each.
You could also record one track at a time through the mains with fx, and you’ll have one DT track including its fx as a track in the DAW.
Many users just record the summed master fx, or they don’t use them and instead use DAW fx…
Since OB for DT is not here yet we don’t know if they have changed it somehow…
Hope this helps…
6 Likes
I dig what leoparde is saying. It’s true and its totally annoying.
A better solution might have been, to provide the FX section of the machines as an Audio FX plugin, this way, it can be dropped on a return track, or in fact the track itself, and all tracks can be sent to it as needed. The effects are in fact, digital, so agreed there should be no reason why there couldn’t be some digital counterpart in the DAW.
I think the bummer is, people actually quite like the FX section on the analog units, but in many use-cases of production they are rendered useless, as leoparde illustrates above.
Best use cases are to simply use one track with Master outs and record your tracks track-by-track, if its effects you want.
Or, simply take the analog signal path for what its worth, and the benefits of OB, by utilising software plugs for FX, disregarding the Elektron FX altogether.
I really doubt it is artificial at all. Good sounding delay and reverb take processing power and memory, far more than a filter or LFO or envelope. I’d bet that DT has only one global delay and reverb because there just isn’t enough processing power in the unit to do eight of them. As such, we can wish all we want, but it is unlikely something that can ever be implemented with a firmware update.
7 Likes
I like it when people like @Open_Mike show how to answer with both right info and respect.
Please, people no aggression in this place, especially on topics such as FX sends.
Keep it for darker places of the internet, oh please.
(@123alastairj would you mind amending your posts once your in a better mood, dear?)
Now @leoparde I appreciate that you kept your calm, this is very welcome.
I guess you understand that FX being applied on the summed master, one cannot get two different wet signals from two different tracks.
You cannot get two different reverb FX from two different sources if you have only one reverb engine.
Even if DT is digital, processing power comes from dedicated hardware.
Choices were made to keep a low cost for DT obviously, while not sacrificing quality.
Now if you wish to process your tracks further ITB, dry signal is rather good as you can have a better processing power on your computer, thus all the FX you need.
OT as different FX per tracks, and it’s a bliss to be able to plock the hell out of them.
It may suits your need better, though it has 2 separate stereo outs (“only”).
Today still hardware is about dealing with limitations and get the best out of it.
That’s how people here rather go with an imperfect 
instrument than a limitless ITB solution.
There is a lot of fun to be had once you accept this.
9 Likes
Maybe they’ll have the 8 digital outs, and the stereo audio pair as the fx output? Tracking 8 tracks to capture a performance shouldn’t really be a problem with a stereo delay and reverb return coming in as an additional stereo track. The issues may come when the sfx are an inherent part of the sound design for a given track. One might have to make some creative decisions about how to track that in a DAW. The limitations of Digitakt can be found as inspirational if you look at them in a good way.
It’d be a little extra work but couldn’t you mute/solo channels and record different wet mixes. If you have the box slaved to your daws midi in theory even with multiple recording takes everything should stay in sync.
I think the intention isn’t to actually USE the DT/A4/AK/AR FX on OB(although you can). It’s nice to have the FX on these machines for playing around with- but honestly, you most likely have better reverb stored on your DAW that you’ll have better control over and can multiple to your hearts content(I haven’t done this because I haven’t had the gumption) it just seems like the most effective solution.
2 Likes
I’d love this solution. For mixing I would use Vst FX but it would be awesome to have some way to capture the P-locked FX on the Digitakt. I think the FX sound very interesting when P-Locked. Guess we’ll find out pretty soon.
Well, you can of course “p-lock” anything in your DAW too. The hands on approach is what makes it more interesting in case of the Digitakt. Octatrack sounds more appealing every day though. I mean the whole point for me was the sequencer itself, Then again, you can always record track-by-track, which kinda makes Overbridge pointless for me…