Yeah, so, you couldn’t replace with Monomachine with the Virus necessarily but you could somewhat replace the Virus with the Monomachine, right? Unless I’m missing something…
The OT MIDI sequencer can send PC messages when you switch to a pattern that is associated with a different Part.
The OT can also send PC messages when simply switching pattern.
Hi all,
I’m a long time MD uw mk1 user, and recently picked up an Octatrack. i’ve wanted a MnM for sometime, but the planets never aligned and it never happened. one of the draws was its midi sequencing abilities, which added to its appeal and possible usefulness in my setup.
so, ultimately I’m just curious if there’s any differences between midi sequencing capabilities between MnM and the OT, and/or if one does everything the other does plus more.
assuming the Octatrack is the superior midi sequencer, how do you seasoned elektronauts see how I might still make use of the MnM midi sequencer in a trinity setup of MD + OT + MnM … assuming the OT would be taking care of midi sequencing other non-elektron gear (eg korg volca keys etc - 8 tracks will most likely be plenty). I’m guessing maybe I could use the MnM’s cc/lfo sequencing to control the md/ot if i need some extra in that regard ? …
I’d appreciate some thoughts on this, as much as I want the MnM for its synthesis, I want to justify a purchase by having some good use & benefit for its midi sequencers despite using the OT to midi sequence non-elektron gear.
thanks
The major differences are:
OT has 8 MIDI tracks while MM has 6 MIDI tracks.
OT has easy-to-edit 4-note chords per step while MM has effectively unlimited but tricky-to-edit polyphony per step.
OT can sequence Pitch Bend, AfterTouch, and 10 Control Change messages while MM has Pitch Bend and 4 Control Change messages.
OT has three LFOs per track including designer LFO shapes while MM shares the 18 LFOs amongst all the synth and MIDI tracks.
OT has microtiming, individual track length and individual track tempo multiplier settings while MM does not.
OT can launch MIDI tracks independently of the sequencer.
OT only sends Bank Select and Program Change messages when changing parts while MM can sequence PC messages per step (but then your MD can also do this).
From the list above, and if the OT is handling all your other external instruments, then there’s not a huge sequencing role for the MM to play in your planned setup.
Many people like using the MM’s arp to sequence drums on the MD, but you would have to have particular needs to use the MM’s arp instead of the OT.
There’s a lot music that can be made with MD, OT, and some external synths, but it’s worth considering the MM for its synth and effects/routing capabilities alone.
4 Likes
thank you Peter for the detailed response. very helpful
Also very important: The MnM sends CCs before the note-On event, the OT sends CCs after the note-on event. So if you p-lock a CC with the OT, you’ll always hear glitches. Due to this issue, which i call “cc-late-bug”, some parameters, e.g. attack time, are impossible to automate with the OT.
2 Likes
wow. this is a massive oversight. have elektron confirmed this is a bug that they will fix ?
it seems like something that should be fixed by now. I hope it is not an intentional decision.
I own both MM and OT.
How would one test this particular point ?
Any suggestions ?
Random LFO to velocity doesn’t work on the MnM, does it?
wow. this is a massive oversight. have elektron confirmed this is a bug that they will fix ?
it seems like something that should be fixed by now. I hope it is not an intentional decision.[/quote]
It surely is intentional. Therefore it’s unlikely to be changed.
As psicolor wrote, it certainly makes it difficult to speedily automate some parameters like attack time, but I disagree with the statement “you’ll always hear glitches” as written. In many likely use cases, there won’t be any problem.
why would they intend this ? especially seeing as they got it right in the MnM ?
Sending CC before the note starts is not perfect either : if my note is ending and just before the next note occurs I raise the level, I should expect some strange things as well, am I right ?
Although it seems that artefacts on a dying note should hardly be noticed, while they must have some impact on the first microsecs of a brand new note.
So I would say BloopityDoopity is right saying this was implemented the good way on MM.
What’s your thoughts about this ?
I think the Glitch problem in Dalai example is less painful because it issues on less number of cases. Sending CC after the note, issues every note (but ofcourse not always we can hear the glitch).
Additionally we can smooth the Dalai problem by using trigless trigs, one step (or more) before the note step.
Between two bads, i think the MM way is better.
PS: I’m curious what solution is applied in MD.
absolutely the MnM way is optimal … the circumstances where it is no good are far, far fewer than the Octatrack method which is, imo, clearly the ‘wrong’ way to go about it … the workarounds are even more of a problem than the bug itself, imo.
anyway, here’s another thread about it from a few months back. just bumped by another user having the same problem …
CC first is definitely preferable. You will notice it more if a note is triggered before all its parameters are set up than if you set up the parameters first and then trigger the note. Why? 2 big reasons:
- Transients.
- There’s a good chance the previous note is nearly, if not completely, inaudible at that point.
I get the feeling they had to make some unconventional choices with MIDI implementation to make sure the more critical processes (e.g. streaming from card) had enough CPU. That doesn’t totally explain why they chose to do notes first instead of CCs, but I’d guess some of the same code is used for MIDI reception as transmission, and there’s definitely some funkiness with parameter reception, at least in the case of sample start position.
1 Like
My thoughts are ‘this is hugely inconvenient’ it’s just way too glitchy in my experience with the CC happening immediately after the Note On
Has anyone had any word back on this … is it possibly different from their old machine for a reason, how does the DT compare
I’d be keen to hear if this can be reviewed
If it was about prioritising Note timing, surely the CCs could be sent a few ms early
I’m also wondering if this ties into the issue with slice playback
I wonder if @sezare56 has any thoughts on why the ordering would be this way
The problem I see e.g. if you p-locked a CC affecting OSC pitch tuning for one note … it affects that note and the following one as follows, they both suffer an instantaneous and very noticeable glissando at the attack … ugh !!
I’d take a note-on a ms late in preference to this any day - so we need to find out why it is set up like this - are there other chats on this with more insights ?
1 Like
That’s an honor but I didn’t follow that topic and don’t really understand what’s the question.
CC before or after Note ?
For slices or in general ?
For MM ?
Just this part 
CCs set the sound up - it’s a problem if they happen after the note is played imho - the question is why might it be this way - is it possibly oversight or maybe driven by timing - just want some opinions before asking 
unless they have fed back info before
I made different test before with OT’s midi tracks or midi keyboard with Even Processor Plus, mapping notes to CC Pitch, Rate, Comb Filter Freq, Slices…to OT, A4. (Blofeld with PChange just before note, working like a charm, like a drum kit controlled by OT)
It always worked better with CC before, from what I remember. As you know, it’s special with slices latency. For Pitch, quick slide effect if after for example.
I used Pitch control of A4’s oscillators, to make it 4x2 paraphonic, sending always the same A4 note (A4, not Analog Four 
) with CC before notes, with success, but I needed Midipal + EPP.
1 Like