Is this possible? (or even possible with a Firmware update)
When I use the LFO set to Sample Slot, I will frequently get some incredible groove that I’m really feeling as the LFO cycles through the various samples in the sample pool.
It would be AMAZING if I was able to record this, so that each triggered sample gets recorded to Trigs. 
(because what normally happens, is when I stop and start the LFO, it will cycle through the samples in a different order — thus losing the incredible groove I had generated using the LFO)
I know I can of course resample the output, and that is one way of capturing it, but is what I am proposing also possible?
Many thanks in advance. 
You should be changing the LFOT setting so that the LFO follows the trig instead of the track, when you lock the LFO to the first step you should get more consistent results. See if you still need this feature after you try it.
To expand, it sounds like you’re using a free running LFO. By having the LFO trigger from the same point every time you won’t have these unpredictable cycles.
Some of the fun is in the unpredictability, but I guarantee if you don’t change any other settings from what you have now and just press start and stop a bunch of times until it gets back in the same groove, you’ll see what I’m talking about. You’re just not picking up the LFO at the same part of the cycle as you were when you liked the groove, so you’re perceiving it as different.
If you were to hit play on the exact same part of the wave, the results would be the same, so the way you do that is to flip the LFOT setting to where the LFO will follow the individual trigger that you set, and it will do that every time, otherwise the LFO wave is constantly running in the background and could be thought of as time based, like if you knew the exact number of MS per cycle, you could still predict when it hit but that’s not a smart thing to try because nobody has a stopwatch running all the time. You may just need to deliberately fine tune and set the position where the LFO cycle begins in order to get back to the groove that you liked.
I don’t know how this will work if you’re using a random waveshape, but for any of the other LFO shapes this should probably work (for the purposes you’ve stated).
1 Like
Ah — I got it now!
Yes, all I had to do was lock just that FIRST step in my sequence to be locked to TRIG Mode — and still have the LFO run as ‘FREE’.
Yes, I previously had no LFO Mode locks — so it was all running Free, and therefore starting at completely randomised points.
My next question:
To try to find the original pattern I was liking so much, would I now just adjust the PHASE of the LFO?
Assuming that I have not changed any other settings, if I do this I should theoretically be able to find the same groove again?
OR
Do I have to change the PHASE on just the first locked trig?
1 Like
You change the phase on the locked trig. That’s going to be the starting position for the LFO wave phase from now on. That’s why it works consistently, you’re locking the start point.
Yeah, it seems to be working by just changing the Phase on the main LFO, rather than the locked one.
Coooooooooool! Thank you SO much
This is a major level up in my workflow — I just love incorporating randomisation — but you also want to capture the best takes!
1 Like
Ok good. Have fun. Resampling is ok to do though, sometimes it has it’s own advantages.
If it’s working how you envisioned, that’s all that matters.
Ah, OK — I’ll try that, too.
Am I correct in my assumption that if I change ONLY the phase on the Locked Trig, I should theoretically be able to accurately reproduce the original groove I heard when setting this LFO?
(its only a matter of finding the right starting point, yes?)
1 Like
Yes, think of sample slot as degrees of deviation from the sample position of the main sample you set to the track, as dictated by depth. You can sort of estimate the range even if you don’t know the exact amounts.
So yes, you will get the same groove consistently but all lfo settings need to be mirrored to the locked trig.
If you’re getting a predictable result right now maybe you don’t need to, but my understanding is by locking the phase and triggering the lfo using the “trig” instead of free, you’re guaranteeing the consistency.
Save your progress then try it out and at worst func no back to your prior config.
1 Like
Awesome — lots to play with here. And is usually the case with most things Digitakt — lots of scope for pleasant surprises. 
Man, with both the Digitakt and Digitone, they are just devices that get deeper the more you play with them (in a good way!)
Thanks once again, this is something I will be incorporating into my workflow A LOT moving forward. So good.
1 Like
No problem. I’m also a fan of both devices, but because I like to arrange on a longer timeline, I do often resample to my mpc. I prefer the elektron workflow for sound design and let’s call it “riff composition” but there are some disadvantages to having like 30 pattern changes in a song.
If you can limit it to a single pattern or a couple of patterns and do everything with track management and trig conditions / probabilities, then I do much prefer working on the digitakt/digitone, it really only gets to be an issue when you want to do stuff that requires long form arrangements or real chopping and the digitakt does not excel at doing that easily.
Sure, you can manually set sample start and end points and manually slice everything, but it’s not as economical in a time sense.
Anyways, I agree, locking the LFO is a major workflow upgrade but play around and see when you need it and when you don’t. Some things like melodies or specific patterns where you can specifically hear how you want it to sound in your head and you want to capture that (your current use case) are good to add the element of predictability to, others like maybe having an LFO on some fast hi hats can benefit from a little unpredictability.
1 Like
Agreed — both devices are great idea generators, but arrangement ain’t their strong point.
Is there any reason you don’t track into a DAW via Overbridge for arrangement? Or are you keeping your whole workflow hardware based?
1 Like
It’s not that I’m committed to a dawless workflow under any kind of ethical pretense, just trying to be off the computer as much as possible and spending a shitload of money on software that I’ll only use occasionally seems extraordinarily luxurious to me. I’d always rather have something in my hands that I own and can play with. That’s what’s inspirational to me.
Double clicking on a shortcut and launching another window doesn’t give me any kind of serotonin release in the brain the way touching the hardware and playing with it does.
I also like using a lot of lofi resampling and other rearrangement that is more conducive to certain hardware. A lot of stuff I’ve been playing with lately ends up on my SP202 and yields interesting results so I can often get 2 completely different kinds of track out of the same basic work. Make something on digitakt or digitone, or both, sometimes resample and arrange that on the MPC or just resample straight into the sp202.
Set up short looping cycles or sometimes performative arrangements of whatever I composed on the other machines and have it end up sounding completely different. Just depends on what I’m playing with on that day, however from a personal perspective while I’ll go into the daw when I have to, it’s certainly not my preference.
Not like I have anything to prove from it but it’s just not inspiring to me. When I resample digitakt audio, I don’t do it through the machine though, I’ll track it over USB into the daw and then use transfer to send the wav file back to the DT because I don’t like what the DT resampling does to the audio, that’s one thing I’m pretty particular about.
You can definitely do a full arrangement on digitakt but like I said, it just gets tedious if you have to go through a bunch of pattern changes to get the results that you want. On the MPC I can set up a 100 bar timeline if I really wanted to and just live play the whole way through, or whatever, it’s basically a daw so I’m just convincing myself that it’s hardware to keep me off the computer 
1 Like
Rad, I’ve never used an MPC, so ca’t really compare the workflow — sounds like you’ve found a flow that works for you.
BTW — what are you hearing when you resample via internal Digitakt resampling that you don’t like? Must be significant to add those extra steps!
The mpc is very linear in that you can put everything out where you can see it. You can do things off the grid in a way which is very daw-like. It has some weakpoints from a composition standpoint but that’s probably just because I like the elektron sequencer paradigm. Playing the pads feels considerably different than even the small keyboard model of the elektron trigs in chromatic mode.
The digitakt recorder is not entirely transparent. It’s a point of contention as to whether this has to do with the normalization performed by the recording process. It may not matter or be apparent to some people but the easiest way to hear it is to sample or resample something dynamic. For me I first noticed it resampling kick lines that I had set up on multiple tracks and I couldn’t figure out why they sounded different resampled when compared to the source.
The circumstances were usually tracks with quite a bit of velocity variation throughout. It’s like it’s squashing it or changing it audibly, but it’s probably negligible how much it actually matters, it just bothers me. I like to control the degradation of the sound as a matter of artistic preference so it’s not ideal for me.
The place where it seemed to be most evident is when I would go from a pattern with the resampled part to one with the same kick sample playing a different sequence but not resampled, just using the original one shots, and it was “not seamless” is the way I’d describe it.
I started paying attention more and perhaps it was a mistake to start actively listening for it because the more I did, the more I heard it, so I just started recording off the machines rather than sampling into the digitakt and moving the instead audio over as wav files via transfer.
I feel like I’ve had better results doing that and so that’s what I’ve been doing for kind of a long time so that’s just how I usually do it. I often sample straight into the mpc though, the sample recorder is less biased, and you get more control over editing and chopping the waveform. The actual interface of the sample recorder on the DT is not bad to me.
Thanks for the clarification — that IS very odd. I would have assumed it is a transparent duplicate of whatever the input is —ie. ‘resampling’ it 
If it is to do with any normalisation, then it would seem obvious to make the normalisation a post-resamping option, rather than to apply it by default.
I haven’t A/B’d it in my own productions, and in the context I have used resampling on the DT, I hadn’t noticed it.
1 Like