exactly, maybe if I composed with ot I could also agree with all of you, but I don’t compose with OT, but I only use it for live.
But let’s talk about it, I think that: I create my set, I put all the samples inside, I create the various patterns and then a track. Personally I make electronic music I don’t have to compose an opera I need the parts. Again, it’s just my point of view.
Parts are really useful for live performance on the OT.
2 Likes
once the ot clicks, parts n all that make sense. before that moment they can feel unnecessary & convoluted.
you just need to spend more time with the machine.
3 Likes
1 Like
Spend enough time with the Octatrack and you’ll start speaking Italian without realizing it!
1 Like
that’s when you know it’s really clicked 
2 Likes
Yeah! I like to reload parts on the fly. You could in theory do this with only patterns, à la Digitakt, but I appreciate having the sequencer data unlinked from the part data.
Or even plan my patterns in a way that works well with all four parts – swapping out different machines/machine settings with the same sequencer data can be super powerful
1 Like
The question is how long did it take to learn? I don’t learn OT anymore either, after a little while it becomes learned.
You can load hours long files into statics, upto 2.2gb IIRC. 
1 Like
Stupid suggestion, sorry OP. Maybe this makes sense to people who just play back 909 oneshots or something. Anyone who actually digs into the unique functions of the machine would find them a nightmare to manage without some kind of part/kit system.
If anything I’d want the system expanded so that parts can be named and shared between projects.
2 Likes
Explanation:
I use OT to play my music live, not to make a remix or dj set. Maybe that’s why I don’t care that parts can be named and shared across projects.
1 Like
I play my music live, I don’t remix or DJ, and I need parts to switch between different configurations for things like flex buffers, thru & neighbour machines that can take some time to set up. If you want a simplified sample player Elektron already make it.
As do most OT users, a great many of whom find parts to be an integral part of their performance.
1 Like
If there were only patterns and no parts or banks, would each project only have 16 possible patterns? Unless this new Octatrack could change projects live, it might be too limiting.
I enjoy playing the same pattern with different parts, for variation. Changing a pattern’s part live can be really interesting – it can be done live, without stopping playback! So, when linking the same pattern to different parts, we effectively increase the number of unique patterns per bank! In each bank, it’s almost like we have 64 different possibilities (4 parts x 16 patterns).
Another thing where parts really help me is to have a “messy” part for sound design. I usually create a part or two all the way on the last pattern, and then do all my resampling and layering in there. I don’t really care about conserving tracks in this messy part, because I only use it to generate sounds that are used later in the main arrangement – for example, if I use 4 neighbor and a master track, that’s fine, because it’s separate from my main composition. It’s almost like I have a “laboratory” part in the same project, for generating sounds. If I didn’t have parts/banks, I would need to change projects and it would really interrupt my flow.
If this hypothetical redesign allowed swapping projects on the fly, I might not mind losing parts/banks as much. Simply subtracting these key data structures from the way things are now would not really work for me.
6 Likes
Bahahahah ! This is excellent
1 Like
OT without banks or parts would basically be useless to me! But it’s different use cases I guess, I compose all my music on the OT and then organise it into live sets, I need the opportunity for maximum variation. If anything I’d rather there be more parts and banks available in a project!
Most of my complaints about the OT are fairly basic workflow things… I’d love to be able to transpose a midi pattern up or down an octave, or copy paste banks, that sort of thing.
I don’t really get complaints about the OT being complicated either. I’ve never found it anything other than intuitive, it’s all there in front of you and the structure makes perfect sense to me. I find it incredibly well thought out and designed in terms of work flow, and find it far more enjoyable to compose on the OT than I used to on Ableton, even with the limitations.
1 Like
No! In addition to the Octatrack’s existing sampler. Not instead of. That would be madness indeed.
There’s not enough bandwidth with an SD card - if you wanted to move away from CF it would probably make more sense to have an internal drive.
Given that nobody removes their CF card anyway I feel like nobody would mind it not being removable! Would simplify the design too, cheaper to make and less to service. CF cards aren’t cheap either!
3 Likes
I have a bunch of cards for my OTs, so removable is essential for me, I prefer smaller cards - most of mine are 4-8gb, and they can be found quite cheaply for Sandisk Ultra, which is fast enough at from 80mb/s.
1 Like
I guess by sets you meant projects, otherwise it doesn’t make sense. You can’t access AUDIO folders between sets.
I’d try to understand better actual OT structure before proposing a new one.
One pattern per set ?
In that case you don’t even need sets…
1 Like