Haha, yeah. I liked most of Benn’s video, but I did have a laugh when he said he thought it would be priced around $1200.
I’m like…yeaaah, no one thought that.
6 Likes
was pretty embarrassing that 
why do so many of these grooveboxes choose to use master/send effects? i like using sends when i’m mixing down in a daw but i much prefer insert effects when i’m being creative/composing. which is one of the biggest advantages the OT has over DT and many other grooveboxes
3 Likes
You can use it as a starting point and make it your own. Same as you would edit sample loops etc… and if you don’t need it, it you don’t have to use that feature. The sequencer looks perfectly usable for starting from scratch
1 Like
The sequencer looks really fun, but lack of any synth engines means I’ll pass for now. Interested to see what they add post launch.
Personally I think it’s a great device. I don’t need deep synthesis or editing capabilities. The market is saturated with things like that. It’s the sequencer here that is really turning the trick. The controlled random and glitched ratcheted fade type things it does, even the auto beat generation, I think all of that really sets it apart. In loopops video he took different algorithms from different beat types and mashed them together ie -
Hats - breakbeat 1
Snare - Pop 2
Kick - whateverthefuckchillstep 4
I think one could really get A LOT of mileage out of something like that especially when combined with the variation sequencer it has on board as well.
We have so many so-called grooveboxes that don’t groove at all unless you spend countless hours arduously programming your pattern. The concept of a groovebox in my mind is quite a joke really because with all that programming I might as well be editing by hand on a grid in my computer.
Compared to that this box seems a breath of fresh air. I’m a dad, with a job, a wife and limited time to spend entering steps on a grid one by one. This seems to solve many problems I have with the little amount of time I have to spend making tracks these days. And it solves it in a way that seems to be musical and striking a chord with the music I love and loved back in the day. (no pun intended).
It’s in my cart on Polyend, I’ll probably hit the button soon.
12 Likes
Had a quick flick through the Benn video, an awful lot of very generative sounding generative stuff, I guess this is an evolutionary step from preset styles on Casiotones, and later preset patterns on early grooveboxes, nothing at all wrong with that, definitely has its value for some people, just not for me.
I think that things like being able to set sequencers up how you want them, fill options, trig conditions and parameter locks still allow/require a great deal of user input/choice, algorithmic/generative stuff on the other hand (for me) does not, it is too much like using pre-programmed phrases - even though I fully well understand it is more than that, it does not seem that different in the end.
Edit: I’ll counter this by saying that for standard things like 4 to the floor, or syncopated drum patterns etc, I guess it makes sense, but for melodic stuff (for me) not so much.
Edit2: Also I rarely use arpeggiators and chance for similar reasons, I like everything to be input by me, on purpose.
3 Likes
this thing is awesome
2 Likes
Yea i think it would be a lot of fun, and bound to get something decent out of it, even if it’s just reliving all my IDM dreams.
If it wasn’t for me too being a dad and having a wife, it would already be in my cart 
1 Like
You could say the same about a piano - arduous hours hitting the right notes, what a silly idea.
I think that the point is that I want a groovebox that allows me to make my own music without hours of arduous pattern entry - not one that makes the music for you.
4 Likes
stop making samplers that can’t sample
🥲
18 Likes
The difference in what I’m talking about is you can sit down at a piano and just jam, assuming you know how to play the instrument. Whereas with a groove box, it’s not really like an instrument, more of a compositional tool. Compositionally speaking your free form piano jam isn’t going to be as tidy and well thought out as if you sat there and composed the piece, intentionally, over several hours. But again, it’s something you can do on the spot.
Try sitting down with a DT from a blank project and jamming something that has variation and changes over time in a meaningful way. Very difficult to do. Dataline doesn’t even do this type of work with that machine. It’s not what they’re designed for, which is fine.
Seems like you could sit down with the Play, get a jam going from blank, and make it change over time in a meaningful way. Same as you could do with a piano as long as you were willing to sacrifice some of the compositional prowess you would get composing with it in the way you mention.
I’m interested in and agree with your second paragraph. What would you think would be a middle of the road solution you would like to see that sits between a traditional groove box and the Play from a compositional standpoint.
3 Likes
Huh? It’s not difficult to turn knobs, change patterns, set up fills, trig conditions, sound locks, control-all, etc. etc. The DT in particular seems to have been designed with speed/ease/jam-ability in mind.
Play looks cool but we can’t give it credit for introducing the idea of “music changing over time.”
Editing later to add: My comment here was lame, I know RFJ wasn’t suggesting that Play invented music. Instead of deleting my comment I’ll leave it up here as a relic of a hasty first impression based on fear of change. There’s only going to be more technology coming our way as the years go on, so we might as well keep an open mind and avoid getting defensive.
3 Likes
I like Polyend’s innovation as a company and love the Tracker, but i’m not buying anymore Polyend gear until they finally deliver the vinyl for the special edition Trackers.
This has enough features to make me really interested, but the price is higher than I expected. I’m sure i’ll buy one at some point though, but it’ll be after they deliver the vinyl 
2 Likes
It is an interesting and valid point for sure, although also arduously programming a sequencer has value and does allow variation and change in other ways.
I guess that just as we like simple sweet spot synths/drum machines, and also complex multi function gear, it is nice to have sequencers which are simple/quick and complex/arduous.
2 Likes
For me, the Play is borderline too functional. I guess I’m just still trying to cross the mental gap of accepting that it’s equal parts curation and composition, but this has the wrong kind of readymade feel, at first blush. As a first reaction. Any thoughts?
1 Like
I think that seems about right, composition/curation, I think it could lead to stagnation/apathy for me.
3 Likes
I’m not trying to give it credit with coming up with music changing over time. Your first paragraph though assumes a pattern has already been programmed by the user into the machine that sounds half way decent. I’m not trying to avoid that all together, I’ve spent years playing all these groove boxes we’d talk about on here. The Polyend approach looks different here and allows for less programming which in my situation is a good thing.
1 Like
Additionally if one was to get together with other musicians in the room, something like this could be useful in that case as well.
All this is just my two cents. Use cases vary widely and I realize my desire for making music in the moment isn’t the norm.
1 Like
Ouff i think this or the Hapax would be my next thing of ”villhöver” (wantneed)
Looking at the midi part of the play only so far and i think it would be a killer combo with my Torso T-1
But so would the the Hapax…both in similar price range.
Well dont ”need” more gear but it would shure be a new fun toy that would bring some spice to my neverending sequencer quest…
1 Like