i have no idea about coding.
my rytm doesn’t sequence MIDI. and im well over it.
but it does something weird.
In Ableton i can set the midi input to come from the rytm. put on a soft synth. and play it (the softsynth) with the rytm in chromatic mode.
here is a quick video. in vertical mode just to trigger someone.
its weird. but it is what it is. ableton is more then a good enough midi sequencer. 
I was confusingly only referencing existing MIDI out data (which was not what was being pointed out)
re stored seq params:
that still doesn’t make it a trivial matter to deliver it … trivial would be both without challenge and without consequence; translating data from the sequencer is easy as is preparing MIDI data, irrespective of how it is referenced internally … that doesn’t make it a trivial consideration to satisfactorily deliver the MIDI without impact somewhere
It’s too simplistic to suggest it’s trivial and therefore it must be being withheld (or worse ‘crippled’) for some cynical $ theory normally. Nobody doubts Elektron can do the easy numerical bit, it’s about whether the consequence of reworking what they have would be worth the effort/results
Anyway, here’s another cue that it’s not helpful and all too easy to just offer up quick fixes whilst looking solely from one perspective … the specifics or inconsistency of my passing thoughts on why it may be so are not the important bit in any case, the unrelenting ‘MIDI is obviously withheld’ narrative is what’s under scrutiny … implying that it’s a mere handful lines of code away from a done deal is adding fuel to that fire
In this case, i’m pretty sure i can.
You can look at it from any perspective you want, but that series of operations is trivial.
How it gets out is a mystery. The assumption is that the midi port buffer is somehow accessible by the main processor.
It doesn’t mean it would be easy to actually do it because there can be other limitations. They were apparently talking about firmware and cpu cycle limitations. That may very well have made it hard to implement.
But, again, that has nothing to do with a mismatch between midi and internal representation of the data.
the pads and keys of A4 send OT MIDI notes, but it’s not sequenced to the MIDI side for some undisclosed reason (but it is most certainly not part of a sales conspiracy)
I think you are shifting problems here.
It was suggested that there was some magical difference in representation of the internal sequencer that prevented it being translated to midi somehow.
I refuted that. That’s all.
All perspectives should be examined… 
I don’t subscribe to the ‘midi withheld’ theory as such. But i’m not sure it would have been as impossible to implement as they make people belief.
I also think that there was myth-forming around the stated reasons for not implementing it.
No, but unless they hired coders from mars it would work very much along the lines that i described.
And have you thought that if they can translate this data for screen printing they can also translate it for a freaking midi message?
Pretty much, yes.
The number goes from 0 to 127. That is usable in midi land without any change.
Of course that simple graphic is not magically pulled out of their ass. It is the representation of a number stored i memory, which is the actual sequencer data.
Think of it that way, if they can print that number to the screen then that number must somewhere exist in some way or other.
Again, there is no magical elves doing unthinkably complicated things. It’s a freaking step sequencer.
I’m pretty sure it’s not just simple “midi translation,” yet that amount of data alone, with P-locks, with multiple tracks on multiple banks, plus whatever else is needed to make the parts do what they need too.
Seems far from some simple solution.
Again, if it was possible, im sure they’d do it, they’d sell more units.
It’s [quote=“JuanSOLO, post:90, topic:40062”]
I’m pretty sure it’s not just simple “midi translation,” yet that amount of data alone, with P-locks, with multiple tracks on multiple banks, plus whatever else is needed to make the parts do what they need too.
[/quote]
From a ‘getting the data out of the sequencer and translating it to midi’ perspective, yes, its that simple.
Tho as i have stated above, midi simply can’t do all the p-lock stuff. Midi is serial and all the parameter changes wouldn’t arrive on time.
But for sending out a note only, that is not a problem as such.
Of course, (for the third time now ), there can be other reasons for not doing it.
I have my own view that the biggest driver is their desire (wrt how they would like the device to be focussed overall) … I do trust the clues are not just there to throw the determined off the trail
where the subject becomes thorny for me is in the reduction of it to a one-dimensional problem
perhaps, but I am not pretending that what I said (in haste) bares any scrutiny, it’s more important that the focus is shifted to the notion that the matter is somehow clear cut and that it’s an omission … if folk take that on board, the frustrations that are often expressed along with the same old supporting theories may reduce along with the chance we’ll be reminded of the cost of the device and the year we’re in relative to the early 80s … thinking about why or that the sequencer is built differently may quell the frustrations … clearly I was conflating analogue thoughts re CV tracks with the realities of storing digital data for the sequencer wrt the points Elektron offered
I don’t see MIDI sequencing tracks ever happening, but I’m wondering if the advent of the mkii version is perhaps an opportunity for them to address the points that could be seen as detracting of the new flagship aura … maybe basic MIDI follow of the internal tracks could happen, but we know that FRs for tracks and cc etc will soon follow
It seems that to some degree they have had it in mind from the start, given the dimensioning of various parameters.
Well, some things are simply simple. Given resource constraints you sometimes come to a
pretty singular solution. Meaning, some things are just done a certain way because you can’t do it better in another way without doing it worse.
Aah, well…
And those are certainly valid points. But there are counterpoints as well. Elektron could for instance say that midi sequencing is not the core function of their devices and implementing it in a way they like would take up more resources then they wanted to allocate per device.
I mean, if you take the midi stuff seriously then you probably also want various interface bits for easy control of settings/parameters. They just may not have wanted it at all as a function of these devices.
to me its simple. The Digitakt shares a lot of the code as the RYTM ,and a lot of the internals. The Rytm doesn’t have midi out from the sequencer because they don’t want it to compete with the OT and Digitakt. I accept it and I’m ok with it, but I’m not going to pretend like Midi out is some big problem to solve. It’s Elektron being Elektron and wanting you to buy multiple products, plain and simple
good tip, tnx
If anyone knows how cramped the rytm internal memory is already, its @void . You should ask him. IIRC he said that even conditrigs were cleverly stuffed inside the memory space of some other stuff, in order to make em fit into the project data etc
Assuming that something should be trivial wrt any changes of elektron boxes is being ignorant of the whole picture IMO. Very often I’ve read that once experts (as in, people who do that stuff professionally in their day jobs as opposed to forum “knowledge”) crack open an elektron box, they are impressed of what they see. I would imagine the software/firmware being equally efficient.
and so it goes on … 
will everyone who wants a device with feature x and y therefore buy a device with just feature x ?
will everyone who has the device with feature x and also wants another device with feature y buy only 
stuff ?
the multi-sales driven theory isn’t really that logical/simple … and it’s been refuted as a motivating factor
I chose to have a more open view on their vociferous rebuttals on this being a deliberate omission with an easy fix, it’s not helping to perpetuate the sales myth
let’s wait and see what drops with the new machine, I can see the slim possibility that they may take a moment to address a few of the community niggle points, if the new one didn’t have the sampling it would perhaps lack a bit of the wow factor
back to speculation
i’d be happy if the shown parameter screen followed the last Track played (i.e. make it an option to follow or stick(default)) … this is a no excuse and simple fix but I don’t for one moment think they’ll differentiate the DT from AR by leaving it off
I do wonder whether the inclusion of sampling and the likelihood that the DT style sampling fine control over sample point will be there will trickle back to the MKi to maintain project compatibility
sample start/end finetune params would solve alot of issues people are unhappy about wrt rytm mk I. I too would welcome such an update, although do not consider the current implementation show-stopping, just a slight inconvenience.
tbh I’d appreciate being able to back up my plusdrive (with ALL THE SAMPLES) to the computer a much more significant improvement. Since there is sampling onboard the mk II, this is what has my attention the most.
i don’t know to what extent, if any, the use of licenced samples in the factory content makes this a nuanced issue … I do see a solution to MKi owners (keep an ordered backup as you upload) … but for MKii owners, it would be pretty unsatisfactory to be unable to digitally extract your own captures
what clues are there in the DT transfer app for this happening ?
yea.
apparently it is pretty full…
dunno if that applies to program memory as well tho.
as for midi sequencing:
of course, the data is there - and I agree with @omatic, to me it looks like this would be a relatively easy thing to do. You can press a pad, Rytm will send a note on/off happily. The sequencer has the info, and each time a gate on/off event happens, it could also schedule a note on/off.
Elektron guys have said it’s technically tricky and I don’t doubt that, but each time the topic comes up I can’t help but be curious as to why.
To be clear - I don’t demand this, just curious.
And I can’t think of a showstopper reason why this basic implementation would be technically difficult. Then again, I’ve never built a hardware drum machine
Would love to know more tho
@avantronica - maybe split this, imo it’s an interesting topic, more from a technical standpoint, but pretty clear it won’t be in the next Rytm OS?
The MIDI OUT lack thing annoys me from the beginning.
It’s not primarily that it would be fun to use the A4 or AR as MIDI sequencers, it’s about being able to save your sequencing work on another arranger than the song mode. I’m sure ton of people would like to use the sequencer to get some nice grooves but in the end would prefer to put them on their DAW and arrange them as they want. In the end it would improve the amount of satisfied customers.
And in fact, it’s just about being whole MIDI compatible. Why can them receive MIDI notes but not send some ? They are half MIDI compatible !
Agreed 100%. It doesn’t make sense to cripple the devices in this way.
Fact is, Elektron have their reasons for designing the scope of their machines the way they do. Some of these will be business related, e.g. having a well rounded product portfolio, wanting to meet a certain price point or maximise profit. Other reasons could be technical ones or decisions related to usability and such. Manuals and spec sheets are available and it’s no secret what the machines can and cannot do before you buy. On some occasions substantial additional functionality was added that wasn’t advertised at release, like the A4’s +Drive, conditional trigs, sync’d LFOs and Overbridge.
I find this whole discussion about alleged “crippling” very weird. If a given product doesn’t do what the seller says it will, it’s false advertising. If it doesn’t do what you feel it should, just take your business elsewhere. That’s the beauty of free markets. Plenty of fish in the sea.