I’m not too keen on the Syntakt chord machine either. The process of entering various chords is clumsy and it always kind of sounds the same. I’m also noticing that I tend to use the DN mostly for pads when paired with the ST…
…which is a pity because I know I can make pretty much a whole arrangement on the DN standalone – I can really relate to the OP!
It’s a tricky chess game we have here, let’s get mathematical for a sec :
We have the Dark Trinity, the Digi Trinity and the Model Duology.
If the Dark Trinity = the Digi Trinity,
then :
A4 = DN
AR = ST
OT = DT
-> The AR got the sample engine of the DT (the DT does not overlap with the OT)
-> The ST got the synth engines of the M:C (the M:C does not overlap with the DN)
so, we have :
(AR x DT) / OT
(ST x M:C) / DN
If we want the ST to have a sample engine, it must not overlap with the DT, so it might have the sample engine of the M:S, then :
√M:S ((ST x MC) / DN) = ST²
BUT
if ST², then the equilibrium of the two Trinities would be compromise, because there is no AR², so if we want ST², it should be ST² = AR²
to have AR², the AR should have the synth engine of the DN, so it should go like this :
√DN ((AR x DT) / OT) = AR²
and then √DN ((AR x DT) / OT) = √M:S ((ST x MC) / DN)
the equilibrium of the two Trinities is restored.
To sum up, it’s a big thing to add a sample engine to the ST.
Oh, by the way, I hate maths.
Yes
I’ve settled on Elektron for hardware, and Reaper for software. I don’t generally mix the two during production. Just in post for the hardware setup.
I also like and build analog sequencers, but for building full tracks, Elektron is the best hardware that I’ve used.
I think potentially giving Syntakt sample play back could basically put a hard cut off on new machines coming to the device because of sample space allocation… it might make it a better solo groove box but it could hold it back from being the best unique device it could be. Especially given the idea that many people will be pairing it with a sampler anyways. As they made additions to the DT the price has steadily gone up over the years (from 600 to now 859) although probably some other factors at play there also.
I don’t really think elektron is as worried about product overlap as often people claim, sampling might just not be what is best for the syntakt overall in there vision but if it is I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see a sampler machine come to it in an update.
As someone who has had countless hours of fun with the Syntakt in standalone and getting a Digitakt tomorrow to fill the sample mangling gap ‘Elektron style’, this part worries me a little too. My plan is to keep using the Syntakt as the primary device so I can still unplug it and sketch out songs in standalone, and then the idea with the Digitakt is to play a more secondary role of “filling in the gaps” through things like textures, percussive elements and maybe sometimes more prominent things too. But I really enjoy the standalone aspect of the Syntakt and feel that there’s a risk of the setup turning into something a bit too complex as soon as a second device is introduced. We’ll see how it goes, but there’s no doubt that sampling capabilities in the Syntakt would turn it into the ultimate groovebox!
Edit: rather than going off topic, I created a separate thread for a related topic: Best sampler to pair up with the Syntakt - Digitakt or SP-404 MKII?
One of the very cool things about the ST/DT pair, is that you can route one through the other, and use the additional effects. Using the analog FX on the ST to duck the inputs for example. Or, if you have a Digitone, you can add its chorus to the DT or ST.
With the DNK it’s even cooler, because you can route something into it, and then use the individual audio outputs on top of that to separate things out a bit.
These combos are ridiculously powerful.
As to pairing up a second sampler to the Digitakt, I’d find one that goes the opposite way. Less sequencing and locking tricks, and more pure sample editing, mangling, effects, etc. Then you have the best of two worlds, rather than more similar stuff.
I had a Digitakt and Blackbox for a while, and while that seems somewhat similar, the BB allowed just enough extra mangling and features (not to mention huge sample storage) that it really was quite complementary.
That’s cool indeed, but I’d probably prefer to have the outputs of the Syntakt routed into the inputs of the Digitakt, for quick sampling of phrases and glitches that can be mangled and turned into percussive elements. So I guess the analog FX bus wouldn’t be used by the DT much in my case.
I have the Model:Cycles and used it extensively before the ST so I’m very used to manipulating the Chord machine. There’s a lot of manipulation potential in that machine and the ST took it to another level. I know a lot of people don’t care for it but I really like it and continue to get great results from it. For anyone that reads this, I recommend looking beyond its limitations and diving into it 
The issue that arises for many when they want to use the DT in this way is that the stereo input sums to mono when sampling.
Yeah, that part is a shame, but with the LFOs and trigless trigs, it’s relatively easily manageable in the end, for my purposes at least. If I really wanted a true stereo representation of a loop, I’d have to devote 2 tracks for it. Given that I plan on using the Digitakt mainly as the added spice to the tracks I make on the Syntakt, it shouldn’t present much of an issue. I’ll use the Digitakt for things like crashes/cymbals, risers, glitchy noise stuff, background textures, and the occasional voice/acoustic sample maybe. In other words, not the defining parts of the song, but rather the ear candy.
I agree that the chord machine does encourage some techniques that one wouldn’t think of when sequencing chords “manually” (e.g. some cool sounds can be made by p-locking the chord inversion).
For me it’s annoying when I have a chord progression that I came up with on the piano and just want to implement it as quickly as possible (as opposed to starting composing on the ST from scratch).
I can absolutely vouch for both sides of this lol. I sold my M:C for a Syntakt and the chord engine is 100x more usable on the latter for me, but I do find myself wishing I could hold down a trig and just play in a chord like I do on my DT’s midi tracks. For someone like me who’s still teaching himself theory, though, the chord engine is perfect as a starting point to program in progression ideas and experiment with variations to then play alongside on a different synth.
Routing the LFO to the inversion balance is fuuuuuun, though. Had to edit to add that lol
I’ve been in that same chord progression situation 
The trick I found for myself is to turn that part of my brain off when I use the chord machine and really take advantage of the inversions and P-Locking… and also using more than one chord track.
I really like the chord machine, but I’ve been trying to make it sound a little less like the chord machine. 
I wish it could get just a touch closer to raw standard waveforms. It gets KIND OF close, but not quite spot on. It would add just enough to make it sound a little more like just playing chords on an analog poly.
Of course, if I’m not using all the tracks I just do poly across multiple tracks with other machines. Works well, just not efficient.
Realizing the topic is straying here, but I’ll admit the chord machine has grown on me.
For me, fast-fading LFO transients (2k to Tune, or slower to a wide inversion strum), p-locking different inversions of a chord to imitate comping, and using a slowish half-cycle LFO on certain stretches of the Wave parameter like a gentle FM envelope … and doubling/panning/detuning or FX block chorus… one or more of these go onto most sounds, and they’ve worked well enough…
Here’s another tip in the chords category: use two tracks and the SY Bits or SY Raw machine, then dial and p-lock the second oscillator into the second note of the chord (eg a 4th or a 5th) and the second track then plays the third and the fourth note. That way you can create much more traditional-sounding chords like a proper sawtooth pad for example - and if you know your chords, this is sometimes even faster than trying to find the right chord using the chords machine.
If you only need three-note chords, you can dial the second oscillator of the first track back to the fundamental for a fatter sounding fundamental, and use the other track for the second and third notes. So, a two-oscillator note for the fundamental and two single-oscillator notes for the other notes in the triad.
They would never do this but imagine how amazing that would be. A couple of sample machines for foley.
If Elektron made a bigger more expensive box with all this in it I would pounce on it.
chord machine is actually very good for twisted neurofunk type basslines when in unison 4 mode, the waveforms could be sharper and chorus would help very much, but it’s still decent.
Something with the foot print of a model:cycles, with ST capabilities but added sampling machines would be very welcome.