thanks! i will definitely try this
1 Like
So Cenk confirmed me that this is an expected behaviour of the machine. i find it happen in his video at some point to, so nothing to be worried of. I just need to make tighter chages or use different patterns.
ow lets hope the freezes and crashes are going to be solved soon with fw. yesterday it freezes 5 times in 2 hours…
1 Like
I have ran into exactly the same issue as you have - based on the same tutorial. I am on a MK1 machine.
Posted here: (Video) Octatrack MK2 resampling the Roland TB03 & TR09
Would you be able to share more details about how / why this is expected behaviour?
I was under the impression that the switch should be (able to be) seamless.
Have not had a chance to try out the advice from @Open_Mike, but will do so later today.
I still wonder if anyone actually has it working “seamlessly” using the Part approach… and/or whether the behaviour is universally reproducible.
i dont know the technical details, but when you switch parts on the same pattern there is a kind of morphing , so you need to change it with tight timing. i just did as suggested: just link the scene 2 to pattern 2, in this way the transition will be seamless and quantized.
In the other way (the one on cenk video) wi have to expect that something weird can happen). if you watch his performance video you will see that happen few times.
You can copy the entire pattern and then load a different part to it. Then you can use pattern change to quantize the part shift. If there’s 4 parts you can make 4 copies and load a different part to each one…
Seemless part switches are possible but they must be programmed in a way that works mid pattern or used on pattern change. Some could make artifacts on pattern change too but it’s because of certain changes or fx happening to playing audio, my first two posts try to explain that more… It’s all about what changes are made from one to the next, the audio is always a result of those changes and not an error…
There’s start silent options for tracks which can eliminate this on pattern change, but note that it can be planned to do cool things and doesn’t have to be avoided, it can be utilized…
It’s not a fault of the OT it’s just the results of a drastic switch of parameters that affect the audio in real time, with a sequencer running that is also changing the parameters to complicate things…
Thank you, @Open_Mike and @fredweb.
The two pattern approach is the way to go, I can get the seamless switching via that route.
And @Open_Mike, you are right. The artifacts of switching parts can indeed be used in a positive way! 
Thanks again!
3 Likes
Hi guys,
I’m new to octatrack (mk2), so maybe I’m doing something wrong…
I’m trying to create the same mr dataline realtime mangling model, but I’m stopped at this problem:
On part 1, I have THRU machine which can on arm command record pattern of live feed via oneshot trig, on part 2 FLEX machine for mangling.
This works ok, on part 1 I hear live input, I record pattern of live input, I switch to part2 FLEX and everything looks good. But if I’ll lock any trigger for any slice, when I return to part 1 THRU, this slice lock will interpret in THRU machine as lock on input volume (with variable around -50 value), so I can’t hear live input.
It’s interesting, that both FLEX’s slice and THRU’s volume are in the same track parameter SRC menu, at the same data entry spot-they are just changing on display when changing machines with part command. Even when I change trig lock for retrig in FLEX, the change will mirror in THRU’s volume for INCD input. When I change lock value for volume in THRU, it reflects in other slice number in FLEX.
I tried new project, making trigs before dealing with parts, or after it, it’s the same.
Am I missing something?
In that video Cenk has the same “problem” you mention. You can see him clear our the locked trigs from the part with the FLEX machine after switching back to the THRU. Like the artifacts with switching a part mid-pattern, this can be considered part of the “happy glitchy accidents” that not only he embraces, but seem to be part of the inherent character to the Elektron machines.
If you want a clear set of trigs when switching between live vs playing back a buffer, use two different patterns, or two separate tracks with a crossfader selecting which one is active.
Thank you Brandon, I slowed down Cenk’s video and noticed deleting trigs. Also on MK1 volcas video…
Which makes me feeling down again about sophisticatation of Octatrack (despite wonders it already makes). I was let down when I found that sliced sample is not played back without start/end? clicks, even when there was no processing (straight recorded voice, played back through linear slice trigs, sliced by the slice grid which seemed nice continuous in editor). What looked mathematicaly, logically possible in this quite hi-end digital world and would be evidently valued, is non usable without other masking sounds. I would not argue if it occurs when mangling, but clicking in base state at slice trigs which should/could be totally exactly distributed, is dissapointing.
But maybe I’m again missing something, or this extreme, but promising and I think possible Octatrack feature (of lots of slice triggers) would not be needed in real world-but that’s against philosophy of possibilities and experimentation -mangling from calm, realistic state to complex sonical reshaping- for which Octatrack seemed the right tool for me.
However, this mirroring of parameter locks to other values of other machines, based on common place in menu is illogical, almost silly, compromising value of the parts, and probably not usefull for anything-however we can bypass that with more keypresses, more patterns, more workarounds. Maybe I could embrace clicks even there are no workarounds(?), with bad feeling that this is not so ultimate device (and haven’t come across other maybe more common and more standing out issues yet), but this locks seems no quirk/trademark for me-just error.
And I’m wondering, too, why this is not issue for people to which it can save a lot’s of time, when this Thru-Flex mangling has quite big attraction power for buying Octatrack
Whats happening is that plocks are stored in the pattern, not the part. The plock will reference the same knob position if the machine is switched manually, or from changing part while in a pattern.
If you link the next part to another pattern, then you can remove the plocks and add different ones, while the old ones remain in the other pattern/part.
It’s very possible to not have clicks, and the machine indeed works.
For linear slice locks with trigs right in a row to play an entire sample, try setting flex setup Len to slice, and flex main Len to a higher value to avoid clicks…
It’s necessary to really let the machine sink in as most of what people think are bugs at first are intended behaviors that can be utilized once understood…
If you keep thinking it should work one way it will never make sense. You have to just learn how it works, and by practicing and experimenting it clicks and makes sense. The most common OT issue is not understanding the OT and thinking it’s messed because it should work some certain way, but once you understand it it works perfectly the way it is and probably with more options than if it worked the way one thought it should.
It takes some time, try not to get frustrated with it, or maybe plan on getting frustrated for a bit. 
if you can put up with learning it, you’ll find the reason lots of us use and love it… -
3 Likes
Thanks for optimism, confirming existence of problems and workaround suggestions
I’m quite critical on any product I get my hands on, but I also have respect for learning curve of Octatrack. However, making critique of Octatrack is like reviewing art film vs. reviewing nice commercial movie (i.e. beatstep pro). I review art films with different demands than commercial ones. That’s why art film can get lower score than commercial one, even side by side there’s little to compare.
I still don’t know how to change patterns by changing parts (if it’s possible), but that leads me to another possible complication - if you’ll have two patterns in setup, which are simulating/workarounding one pattern without that (i)logical mirror bug, wouldn’t you have every other tracks duplicated too, which you can’t (or can you?) trig and plock change at the same time?
As for clicks in a row played sliced track, I believe I tried every possible parameter combinations, fades, making grid slice end points longer etc…, but I’ll try harder if you could get it clean.
1 Like
Yes I understand your frustration, when learning the OT I had quite a few jams stopped dead in their tracks and sent me into hours of troubleshooting. Not fun, but I’m entirely glad about keeping at it as now it’s a wonderful hub for my music.
Without upsetting you I just want to tell you that whatever you think right now is most likely extrapolated from not understanding the interactions of layers of the machine, and your jumping straight to its a “bug”. I don’t see the plock/knob/part interaction as a bug, I see it as how the machine is designed, and program things accordingly understanding that that’s the way it works.
Honestly I wouldn’t cast judgment on the machine until you fully grasp it, unless your judgment is simply that it’s hard to grasp.
It’s different than other gear but actually very well thought out and makes a lot of sense once understood. Seriously, for me lots of wtfs about the OT eventually started clicking, and then I’d realize why it’s like that and that it’s actually better that way.
Again I understand it can be frustrating, but I always try to encourage folks to make it through this part, because then it can really get fun!
1 Like
Jeez you all, I don’t know how I got to be the OT spokesman, I just read the forum a lot and frustrations keep coming up so I try to encourage folks to get though it… But it happens a lot…
I’m not some die hard OT defender, I just want people to have fun making sounds with it like I do… 
2 Likes
It often comes down to “I want the OT to do it like this” vs “the OT works like this”
Learn what it does and use it accordingly!
2 Likes
Guys , I don’t want Octatrack to be something else. I work with difficult audiovisual products and creative concepts, I like it and I’m not afraid of Octa. I just don’t want to call bugs with noble adjectives. Together with mk2, as Elektron planned, here’s new generation of users and it’s also good for experienced ones, if new pressure is made for correcting some issues (I would guess, that conditional trigs are more change of mind after the first reaction on mk2, rather than surprise gift).
I was observing Elektron and Octatrack almost year before I decided to go for it-luckily just at annoucement of mk2. I’m in game industry and I know how difficult is to repair code in relatively small team, when bandwagon of new projects is forcing to abandon not perfect products.
But also I see prestige and uniquity of Elektron-let alone in community, in devotees. I understand that their boxes are little miracles which are pushing big veteran companies into uninspiring recyclers of their own past.
Now, please, could any of you experienced users say, pragmaticaly, if there would be any possible negative effect of making this mirroring bug gone? To be sure: mirroring bug is when plocked value of one machine is mirrored/reflected, changing completely different parameter value of another machine, when changed with part command. Only common attribute is, that they are in the same menu spot.
It happens i.e. when you change parts, flex to thru machine, with trigers plocked in flex (or vice versa in thru, when you plock volume-it will change slice start in flex).
Would it affect negatively any of OT function you use when it will not be mirrored like this?
Is there any reason or advantage of it?
Would it make things better for your work?
I’d write request to electron for this (everybody else is welcome to do the same) and I want to include as much arguments as I can accumulate. Please don’t take me as “disturber of eternal peace” . I just want to take chance of this period, when OT firmware is still open. I don’t want better timestretch or more features-these are true character of instrument, I just see that this could be pain in the axx in what I’m planing to do with OT, also effectively limiting part feature. I’m sure I’ll find another bugs (or whatever we can call it ), but this is actually the most obvious for quite basic role I have found.
Thanks for understanding!
1 Like
I wouldn’t mind if parts had there own plock relationships to patterns, it just seems rather difficult to implement with the current design of the unit. Go ahead and feature request if you’d like, I’ll take it if they could work it out.
Since plocks are stored in the pattern, it seems you would need something like 4 pattern variations per actual pattern, one for each part.
If one part is selected and the sequencer is running through plocks, somehow the device would need to know when you changed parts to not use those plocks and possibly use other ones. Since plocks run through different values per step, they have to be associated with the moving sequencer pattern and not just a single value in the part itself. So there would need to be 4 available pattern variations within each pattern or a more drastic redesign of how the machine operates.
This stuff has to be thought about since we’re dealing with a unit that’s been out for awhile, coded a certain way, and is probably low on available memory and not in a state to have drastic code revamps done to the firmware.(At least with mk1, and very likely mk2)
Currently we just link a part to another pattern to do this, it does use another pattern and in some cases the patterns must be very similar with only minimal changes to achieve things, but we have 256 patterns in our 16 banks of 16 patterns each with 4 parts, and there’s always more projects. You can set pattern change to change pattern/part down to one step.
The functionality you would like currently exists in a paradigm where you need to copy and adjust patterns, and have your part switch after 1 sequencer step instead of instantly.
I’ll add here that I don’t think many OT users switch parts in the middle of a pattern, I’ve been reading this forum for years and nobody ever mentions this. All my part switches are quantized with pattern change…
Most folks set the OT up so a bank has patterns 1-4 set to part one, 5-9 set to part two, etc.
You could set the OT up so a bank has pattern 1=part 1, pattern 2=part 2, pattern 3=part 3, pattern 4=part 4,and then repeat with pattern 5=part 1, pattern 6=part 2, etc…
This would organize your banks into 4 main patterns(1,5,9,13) each with 4 part variations with their own plocks(2-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-16).
Another thing one can do is have a scene or two pre-selected with the part to be loaded that overrides the plocks affecting the first part. It can only be set to one value per parameter and not move with the sequencer, but you can override the parameters you had plocked to a new stationary value that works with the part.
The last thing is that some users have probably programmed parts in ways that when you change them mid pattern, the plocks affect other machines in ways they like, and this will no longer work for them. Doesn’t seem like a common thing to do but over seven years of OT programming I’m sure some folks have projects like this…
Honestly it seems like a pretty deep thing for them to change and I seriously wouldn’t get your hopes up, but I support your request and good luck!
2 Likes
Plocks are pattern data. It tells the sequencer to set parameter slot “X” with value “Y”. That’s how the octatrack is designed and implemented. You want plocks to be part data, but they are not, because machine and parameters are not part of the sequencer. They don’t contain the pattern data.
The plocks are not mirrored, it’s not a bug. When you change part without changing pattern, the pattern does not change, so obviously your plocks will not change either. They remain in place with the pattern. But you changed the part so the machines and part data will be different.
I do understand your thought, it just doesn’t match up with the way OT works. Hopefully I was able to explain properly.
1 Like
I guess @Peter_Peak is suggesting that perhaps it is worth Elektron re-examining this and I wholeheartedly agree, in that I adore this machine that I am learning, but I would never want Elektron to not consider making it even smarter.
My understanding of Parts is still absolute noob-level, so I have no view on what would be a good idea. I do want to lend my support though to creative and supportive criticism of the device, since, as @Peter_Peak pointed out, it isn’t a frozen OS.
I am very inspired to fully understand Parts now, and where they fit into the architecture!
This discussion is interesting and it is helping me understand the machine; thank you everyone
wide eyes ooh… right!
I’m gonna go continue my Octatrack training right now 
Just a reminder you can do it anyway you want, I don’t actually recommend the second part/pattern approach I mentioned, it was just an example of how you could achieve the results we were discussing.
I’d recommend the first approach for starters, and then deviating your own way eventually…