Underwhelmed by the Octatrack Mk2, looking for advice!


When operating in 16 bit mode it definitely converts to 16 bit or the converters themselves operate at 16 bit, that’s the entire point of 16 bit mode existing - to save RAM when you use track recorders. What I’m speculating is that the converters always run at 24 bit and it’s just plain truncation without any dithering when you’re in 16 bit mode, because the coloration sounds like undithered truncation to me, but I’m just speculating about that part.

Anyway, in either mode the OT sounds OK to me but there’s definitely a very audible difference between 24 and 16 bit modes and that could be a big part of why some people have much different experience than others.


Of course :slight_smile:

I see. I misunderstood you. I guess they could be doing that…


For me it worked to add a reverb and a delay as send fx as cue out…, to give the sound a tail When muting.

Sold my Octatrack because of the hazzle, I think too quick… I know a lot of lovers.


may i ask you which interface did you used for recording the OT?


Buy another one!


Yeah, I was using Live as my main thing for years, and the FX always drove me crazy.
Reaktor always sounded better to me, same with the OT, but thats mainly due to scenes and neighbor tracks.


Cool,yeah, I think I misunderstood you, too.


scarlett focusrite 18i20, not the best but I think the sound is pretty great still.

I can send you the test results if you want! Still waiting on more ppl to weigh in


focusing on writing in forums about focusing on tech and not making music


focussing on getting home to jam on my OT :heart_eyes:



Focusing my binoculars to look at Saturn’s rings…


sort out yer links @Supercolor_T-120 … it’s colour btw :wink: OGWTFTW


Alright since no one else is weighing in I’ll let you know what the answers are!

Heres your answers:


  1. original
  2. OT
  3. original


  1. original
  2. OT
  3. OT


  1. OT
  2. original
  3. OT

and here are the actual answers:


  1. OT
  2. Source
  3. OT + EQ to boost highs


  1. Source + Compression
  2. Source
  3. OT


  1. Source
  2. OT + EQ to boost highs
  3. OT

I don’t think that I did this test as accurately as I could have, and I probably made mistakes along the way, but as far as I can tell the OT isn’t doing much to the sound and is actually very neutral until you start to really muck with the sounds.

Interesting how for alot of the sounds you mixed up what the source was and the OT. I found myself doing the same thing and in a blind test actually preferred the way the kick sounded through the OT rather than the source. I think the SEM might have been a bit more obvious, because I don’t think I did the levels as well, but I found I wasn’t really able to tell them apart either.

Thanks for taking the time to answer!


It’s not so much audio played back at original tempo/pitch.
It becomes much more apparent when pitchshifting / timestretching is engaged. OT starts to become grainy with noticeable artifacts quite quickly.


I find questions about perceived sound quality really interesting to explore. In the case of direct sampling into the OT, one becomes an engineer, with all the attendant issues of the engineer. What are the techniques for capturing pristine, beautiful audio? There are many dimensions and layers of solution to that task. There is deep craft involved in tracking, monitoring, mixing, and mastering. Many of us wrestle with perfecting these processes, and the difficultly level of the learning curve is painfully exponential.

One could spend the equivalent of two OT’s on a single mono channel strip. And then, are the contacts plated with gold? Will that make the difference, finally?

It reminds me of issues I often read about in mixing forums: why doesn’t my music sound like I want it to? The degree of confusion is notable. A parallel might be an athlete wondering why he doesn’t just shoot like Jordan. After all, he’s wearing the shoes?

Anyway, I think the OT sounds pretty good, overall. It’s an interesting instrument and leads the user down strange lanes. I suggest one keep searching, like an intrepid explorer, for the elusive, fabled sounds you want to create. They are out there somewhere.


I think that’s to be expected when time stretching audio. I notice the same thing in ableton live


Somehow, this thread helped convince me that I need a Pioneer Toraiz SP-16 again in my life asap. Ultimately, I just want a souped-up Digitakt with stereo sampling & more effects; and with its awesome workflow, and amazing sound quality, that’s basically what the Pioneer is… and more.


Yeah, you can hear Ableton timestretch all over plenty of productions.


Here are some notes for me about the OT. Having owned both the OT MKI and MKII I can say with certainty that the inputs are VASTLY improved from the MKI. I recently bought a Soundcraft mixer and did an A/B and the OT MKII sounded a lot better. One thing to keep in mind about the OT is that whatever limiters it uses kick in quite heavily in the orange, so you should aim to gain stage to peak in the orange, not live in it. In the mix page, I have my inputs set to 127 and track 8 is NOT master (this affects the sound of the inputs). The only thing I really planned on sampling with the Octatrack was grooves and hooks, things that don’t have a lot of dynamic range. And then use the direct monitoring to live sequence the other items that are going through it (in my case, Analog Four MKII and Deepmind 6).

I don’t think the OT is designed for, or to be used for tracking. Do that in your DAW. What it is good for is taking stems or loops from your recorded sessions and mangling them. I think too many people, myself included think too much of the Octatrack as the brain of a setup and that does it disservice. It’s a separate instrument, as the others are.

Edit: I also think it was a missed opportunity to boost the memory and increase the sample rate to 48khz to match all the other Elektron gear. In terms of difference in sound, that’s about the only thing I notice when my A4 is plugged into it, just a tiny loss in high frequency brilliance.