Why is it controversial that a consumer good will be available cheaper when it’s no longer the new thing? I would guess that few people actually paid full retail for the OP-XY even at launch, and I can order one right now at a 12% discount. It seems totally expected that sometime in 2025 you’ll be able to pick one up at at 15-20% discount.
Anyhow, price aside have they finally documented how to do things like setup microtonal tunings? Can you import something like a scala tuning file?
Microtonal tunings are pretty self-explanatory on the OP-XY. There are a bunch of pre-configured tunings you can select from (equal, guitar, harpsi, bagpipe, medieval) and 11 user slots. Tuning is saved per preset. You can edit how much each note deviates from equal tuning in cents.
So I ran into an issue last night which I assume is a memory issue and may possibly always be there. I had 4 multisample presets going and then I noticed on channel 1 - the first multisample preset had disappeared and I couldn’t get it loaded back up even if I removed the other multisample presets on the other channels. Idk maybe it’s just a bug but I assume it’s a memory thing.
That isn’t true. The OG doubles in price.
So, I have questions about potential uses for getting midi from the machine into a DAW. Could you create songs with the internal sound engines, convert those to external midi tracks and export them all at once by playing the song with different midi channels into your DAW?
Haven’t tried it but I don’t see why not!
You’re absolutely right—no one has ever crafted a song using more than nine patterns. Frankly, I don’t even understand why other devices like Elektron offer more than nine patterns; it’s clearly unnecessary. It’s simply impossible to create anything beyond that! After all, everyone adores repetitive tracks, and that’s the only kind of music being produced—endless loops of monotony, with no variation or progression. Who needs concepts like dynamics, modulation, or phrasing when we can just lean into redundancy?
Maybe it’s not your intent, but you’re coming off as pretty aggressive to a good-natured post.
Who needs to bother learning how to use the XY sequencer when you can just use it exactly the same way as you use the Elektron sequencer?
Well, he is “Confidently Wrong”! 
I completely agree, especially when it comes to any sequencer for that matter. Plus, with step components that are scene-based, there’s already plenty of flexibility built in.
its possible to love the OP-XY and also acknowledge that the 9 pattern limit creates frustrating limitations and friction in what is generally a very fluid user experience.
i bet in a year we’ll have 16 
The point of hardware is limitations. I mean, right?
You already have no limitations without hardware.
I made the same discovery this week - super fun and dead simple to generate some really complex, live-sounding drums. I find the drums I program on the XY to be much more interesting than the ones I program on the Rytm - yes, skill issue for sure, but also the punch in effects are so much more intuitive and accessible than scenes / performance macros on the Rytm which are tedious to program and feel comparatively limited.
Personally I think doing something like you have always done it is leaning into redundancy.
Learning new ways of doing something, opening your creativity to new avenues, learning something new, that is not redundant.
So stating that 9 patterns is little is leaning into redundancy, when you haven’t even explored the other avenues of modulating the patterns…
I’m not saying they are wrong, I would love more patterns, but 9 is more than enough for a song. IMO of course.
And I was not being sarcastic, I genuinely want to hear these songs where they have used up 9 patterns of brain, punch in fx and instrument tracks and feel the need to do more.
I think 8,9 patterns are enough to make a good song, but… two FX per track, and same envelopes/filters for all the drums not.
It’s not two FX per track. It’s two tracks of send FX, each with their own 9 patterns. You can swap them out throughout your song, as each pattern can hold its own FX with different settings and FX parameter locks and so on. The only restriction is that only two different send FX can be active at any time.
I don’t think the way the FX are set up is more restricting than on the Elektrons for example. DTII has one send FX more, true, but they can’t be parameter locked. And they can’t be swapped out for other FX, as on the OP-XY.
The architecture regarding the envelopes and filters is pretty much the same as on the DTII as well. Each track has their own filter and amp settings and envelopes. The difference is that on the OP-XY, every track can be polyphonic. And you can parameter lock the envelopes per step. Just as on the DTII. If you p-lock a different sample on the DTII, it also uses the same envelope settings as configured on the track. You can bypass that by using sound locks and the different trig modes allow for other cool things as well, but the basic architecture is not unlike the OP-XY, minus the polyphony per track.
That’s what I mean… only the same two FX sends for all tracks…
I can’t not use Delay & Chorus in track 1 and Delay & Reverb in track 2!!!
It a completely non sense. Definitely is not what Elektron, or most of grooveboxes works…
In my Digitone 2 for example I have 6 different effects per track.
It’s pretty much exactly how it works on many Elektrons. The original DT, model cycles, model samples, and the analog rytm only have two send FX, delay and reverb.
They sometimes have more options per track (e g. overdrive, BRR, SRR), sure, but regarding the send FX, it’s mostly delay and reverb, and sometimes a chorus (DTII, DN, DNII, A4).
I still find it very limited when it comes to composing songs entirely with the OP-XY. I understand that the device has more than enough processor for that.
