The Electribe Sampler also lets you play stereo samples in mono.
If you load the sample on an odd numbered track it will be stereo and take up two tracks but if you load the sample onto an even numbered track it will be mono and only take up one track.
Such a simple feature that allows for working with stereo samples. I really donât understand why it isnât implemented on the Digitakt.
The S2400 does something similar. If you load a stereo sample to a track and have it output to channel 1, it will output to channels 1 & 2 because it is stereo. Or you can set it to mono, and it would output as mono through track 1 only. The ability to do this on the Digitakt would open things up up.
A âLinkâ machine of some sort could do that, but having twice the same mono sample spread out on the stereo field doensât make sense (unless we can invert the phase of the sample at the cost of mono mix incompatibilitiy) so it should only link some parameters, not all of them. And deciding what would be those params seems like an open gate to endless topic of unhappy users. Actually we can already copy paste a track and use it for stereo, the way each one os us want. But yeah, something to speed up the process would be nice obviously.
It was simpler to copy and modify Analog Rytm code (Digitaktâs DNA).
Yes, but a parameter link might be also helpful to sync random lfoâs & slices and get a faster workflowâŚ
copy pasting tracks and using for stereo, is sth different. staging mono instruments in stereo field is sth different. itâs not a workaround for sampling and mangling a nice already staged stereo sample source. so 1 channel stereo, even in lower quality, would be more than welcome.
Sure, I am not arguing with that. Even though I personally would have zero use for stereo sample in my music, because Iâd rather place mono sources in the stereo field and use effects like reverb or delay in stereo, I totally get why it would appeal to some. The Idea behind the âlinkâ machine would be something to speed up the process if you want to go stereo, with the benefit of remaining open to other uses.
sure, in my experimental âselfmadeâ music, i wouldnt do it either, but when you do sample based hiphop beats, and have a nice stereo recording sampled, its just stupid to flatten it to mono 
Never going to happen. Also, really not that simple to implement / code.
DT uses mono samples in a specific format. with 1 magic stereo track involved you should be able to also load stereo samples into a project. Which are only useable by that one track. Which is a workflow nightmare. Stereo samples also take up more space and with 64mb ram space is previous as is. Then there needs to be a distinction between stereo and mono samples on the +drive and in the sample slots and the sound browser. The transfer application needs to be updated to reflect this. Overbrudge needs to be changed to reflect this. Etc. Etc.
We can dream of course but above is just a single example of why this would be a bad idea.
Maybe for a future device. Stereo linking 2 tracks would be the best solution for this imho.
I think this is a step too far. It would work with Mono samples, where user defines what he wants for left and right channel.
But then it would be best to have dual channel recording too, where left and right input get recorded at the same time. This might not be possible either.
And then everybody realizes that stereo samples are overrated ^^
Adding processed stereo field recordings is a must for some.
Id rather have crossfade looping, zoom on sample page and start/end point edits in slice mode 
Iâm very interested by Addac 112.
Can you share your thoughts about it. Iâve learn lot of things about it and itâs firmware problems.
Your the last modular experimented buyer that i know having bought it recently.
The main concern is about itâs firmware. I just donât want to buy such expensive module if it has lot of running troubles.
Thank you for your help, if you donât mind.
I havenât used it a lot, but it has not given me any trouble. I did have minor hardware issues initially, a couple of inputs werenât responding as expected. Since I live in town, I took it back, and they fixed it. I also found a minor bug affecting the max length of samples and they fixed that. ModWiggler is quiet recently about the module, which I take as a good sign.
I had it in a 104hp skiff but it takes up almost half of that, and it was difficult to figure out what support modules made sense. I recently made the decision to put it into a Pod64x with not much else, and then use it in conjunction with another full skiff. I think it needs to take a supporting role while I figure out the best ways of using it. Itâs not a question of learning how to use it; I think it is fairly straightforward in that respect. I certainly have many digital modules with more complicated UIs and endless button combos and LED interpretations.
I would recommend it, but with some caveats. It is not a granular processor, really. It is more of a microlooper. You probably need the full power of a laptop or desktop to really do granular properly. The firmware lets you push things into the red in terms of fidelity, grain size, and number, rather than building in safeguards. Youâre the one who has to dial it down. When the CPU use gets high, the sound can get glitchy, and the grain display inaccurate. But I have not had a crash. If you are okay with this, it offers more control than anything comparable, and the display is really well designed.
I wrote about it in my flânerie FIMS, section 3.4.5.9, scroll down from 3.4.5 in the below link. But it might not tell you anything you donât already know. Happy to answer specific questions, or fire it up and try something if you want.
https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~plragde/flaneries/FIMS/A_Eurorack_System.html#(part._.Sound_.Shapers)
Thank you so much for your (always) precise and appreciate point of view. Now my addac122 firmware doubt is dissipate.
I donât think that itâs the right place to pursue this exchange. Maybe i will ask you another question in the âyour modulars sectionâ, if you donât mind.