Using Octatrack as final master for tracks

Elektron Gear Octatrack
1

Friends at the forum.

I used to be a workstation kind of guy. I liked to do everything in one box.

And that was fine, until I was cursed with an acquired taste for analogue gear. The workstation concept doesn’t exist in that world, and when it does, it’s like six voice groove machines (Tempest), four voice keyboard sequencers (Analog Keys), VA drums and synths in a box (Electribe), and so on. Basically, a combination of gear is required to get a full palette, or at least it’s required for me. I suppose you could settle for one piece and make the most of it, but I don’t want to. I like the stuff that comes out when you combine gear. So there.

But having been spoiled with the idea of having one machine produce the final track, I’ve taken to the Octatrack as the final destination for everything I do. I feed it with loops, chords, leads, drums and everything else, and then I build the track in the Octatrack, only returning to my other gear when I need to add more flavour to the tracks.

So I’ve come to the conclusion that if I want the analogue sound, with whatever combination of gear I use, and I want to keep as close to the concept of controlling it all within one box, the Octratrack is my solution.

I’ve owned it for about a year, and we’re getting along fine, so the workflow is not a problem. Some tinkering is just part of the fun with connecting and reconnecting gear to record new stuff into it.

Here’s my question, though -

How would you say that the Octatrack measures up as a device for spitting out tracks with final quality?

Are there more of you that use it not only as an awesome piece of gear to work with your other pieces of equally, more or less awesome gear, but also as a final destination machine where your track is built, produced and rendered, ready for mastering?

For me, it’s as close as I can get to a workstation concept with the sound that I want. I’m just curious if other people use the Octatrack as a machine that maintains your entire track, not just parts of it. Kind of like an eight track recorder from the old days, where the master tape is the final mix and the track as it’s intended to be.

2

Amazing topic, Andreas.

I have exactly the same question: coming from a DAW background, I was impressed by the elegant minimalism of OP-1 and, with the help of the forum monthly battles, I learned how to craft beats with less resources.

I´ve got the OT in August and after finally understanding it´s logic, I´m trying now to do everything inside the machine, and would be really grateful to learn about experiences using only it to finish tracks :slight_smile:

3

I think for totally OTB people ITB Mastering is still best for final results. i would suggest doing light mastering on the Octa, but leaving room for final mastering on the computer. Grab a couple nice Vsts for mastering. A good limiter and maybe a saturator/tape emulator of sorts is really all you need.

4

Interesting…

as I was reading your story, my ears are listening to the new ep I am about to release… and I can relate a bit to your story…

Before I worked with elektron machines, I had a fully equipped roland based studio. many devices working together, each doing just a small bit… compressors and fx a plenty. boy I had fun driving the audio-equivalent of the uss enterprise bridge.

These days, I just grab my octatrack and some other toy, and sit at my kitchen-table. recording nice idea’s straight into a little field-audio/video recorder. I find the recordings I get are good enough to share with my fans. Some things can use slight touches but… my laziness / quest for efficiency wins the battle. they go straight to youtube and the likes…

For my ep though, I am doing slight aftertouches in reaper. fix some little things to make it sound slightly better… but most of all, I just fix volume/difrences… and make the balance of the mix feel more equal along the entire sonic journey… After this is done… I trim and intertwine the songs so it all falls together nicely… and after this, the whole mix goes to my special blend of vst’s to give it all a more lofi old fashioned tape recording flavour, while trying to keep the newage crispyness of the original recording straight from the octatrack…

so to speak, the ep will be “mastered” to my taste … (which doesn’t necessarily means it will sound “correct” on every hifi system in the world… )

tldr short version: On my records I use some vst-trickery on my audio… but what I share here usually is just “what comes out my octatrack” which controls/records/samples all my other toys.

5

I’m the same as you when it comes to workstations. Love them and their cohesive sounds. OT, MPC, ASR, MV…

When beta testing early OS releases, I produced entirely on the OT for a year. Just feeding it vinyl samples. I’d reserve the master track for a compressor and one other effect, and maximize my use of 7 remaining tracks. Everything was arranged and recorded live to a wav recorder, like dub mixing. Never used the arranger. In this respect, it worked great. Albeit, a little rough around the edges. (Arranger would have made my life easier I’m sure)

I lost some work due to early OS or machine bugs over time. Or even silly key combo accidents. I’m still mad in regards to a couple and feel the OT is working with thinner ice than some other workstations. Call it more precarious maybe… the box just feels unfinished.

As for the SOUND?! That’s easy, its GREAT! All Elektron boxes could push final mixes, no question. If not for PUSH and a Dangerous D-Box, I may still be working straight off the OT or MV.

You have to admit, the OT is a small basket to put all your eggs in!

That track count was most restrictive for me. Especially when using the master track to push your mix. I don’t mind the limited outputs but I didn’t like resampling everything to consolidate tracks. For this reason, I could see TWO OT’s being a VERY viable one-workstation solution. Or another dedicated Elektron machine for drum production.

PS: The Roland MV-8800 is the most capable workstation I’ve ever used. Even spits out “mastered” tracks if that’s your thing. Cop a cheap one to go with the OT and you may find your perfect arranged marriage. Less than a $500 gamble there, which is a bargain for weddings. They’re quite complimentary…

1 Like
6

I did pair my Octatrack with an MPC1000 for a short while, since I was after those longer leads and that linear approach to composing, like having a larger timeline that maintained some kind of order in the song. The Arranger mode in the Octatrack is a bit primitive for that. I had this idea that this would create a super workstation, based all on samples and with strong live performance features.

But that didn’t work at all. The workflows are so different, and the MPC just is very different for what it’s used for.

(and here begins a weird rant now)
Also, the MPCs are ugly. Hey, that’s relevant to me. I’m shallow that way.

I almost bought a Prophet 12 module just because it would look so damn good next to my Tempest. But since I’m not insane yet, I didn’t. I would’ve, if it had a sequencer in it. But before the Pro2, Dave Smith apparently felt sequencers were generally redundant and punished users with hostile sequencer interfaces to compose patterns within his synths (Tempest being the obvious and brilliant exception), basically telling us “You want a sequencer? I’ll give you a sequencer. I’ll put it where the sun don’t shine. And if you want it, that’s where you’ll have to go look for it.”

Then someone said “Hey Dave, everybody’s making some pretty solid sequencers now, even Moog, except for Nord but their synths are red so they get away with it. How’s about we make one too in our next synth?” And Dave would go: “Never. Sequencers are for the weak.” But then a Curtis filter caught his attention and while that kept him busy, his more forward thinking staff (that would be all of them) implemented a sequencer in the Pro2 when he wasn’t looking, and once he found out (during the shooting for the ad, a week before the synth’s launch), it was too late to do anything about it.

So Dave said: “I’m very pleased that I pushed for this sequencer feature in my new synth. I’ve been wanting to do awesome sequencers for years. It’s you guys held me back, you backwards thinking lot you.”

And everybody smiled and the Pro2 did very well.
(end of weird rant)

I might check out that Roland tip, though. Interesting advise. Thanks.

7

So that got out of hand.

Sorry for spoiling my own thread.

8

I had an mv8800 in that roland based studio… if you can get one with the extra-outputcard for cheap… do it … its a lovely machine… kinda like having cubase1.0 with audio-tracks :slight_smile: very simple, but deep in options.

9

Andreas, what did you dislike about the MPC 1000 in conjunction with the Octatrack? I’ve been considering getting one and installing JJOS to go alongside my OT for longer passages and sequences, but it would be helpful to know what didn’t work for you.

10

PERSONALLY I don’t think the OT measures to other things as a device for spitting out masters. I’ve made it work in the past for mixing, but I didn’t love it. And when I did, I always had to treat it in my DAW for a final master. I actually prefer the AR’s sound, even though it’s obviously harder to make full tracks on there.

11

The answer is no, it doesn’t have enough brain or features on the master track to deliver good enough results.

But your idea of good enough may be different - I don’t know where your “releases” go.

12

Thumbs up on the MV idea. For someone who had the time to look into it I think it’d be a great OTB solution.

13

Accent,

I had the exact same idea when I bought the MPC, but once I had it, I kind of wondered what I was really trying to accomplish with this approach that I couldn’t achieve with the Octatrack. I had this idea I wanted longer linear structures and more control over specific details that a more linear composition would offer, but I found out that for me - and I want to emphasise that this was for me, this isn’t necessarily true for anyone else - it was just an excuse for not being able to do the hard work required to make good music. Instead of learning the Octatrack, I went looking for solutions in other tools, which in my case was the wrong idea.

Having said that, there were a couple of fundamental practicalities that put me off.

First off, the way the MPC works is very different and a bit dated, to my taste. Great for creating quick grooves, jam and improvise, and also solid for MIDI. But to bend, twist, slice, bake, dice, cut, chop and transform the sound, there’s not much going on there. The effects are standard and not particularly good at that, and they’re quite limiting. So all the audio magic that is the Octatrack is practically non-present at the MPC.

Second, it’s clunky and bulky, and just physically a pretty awkward device next to the lean Octatrack. That makes a difference when you move around a lot like I do. It was like one of those embarrassing cousins you kind of like and want to be nice to, but it’s always awkward when he’s around all the same.

So in the end, the different ways these devices work wasn’t worth the effort for what I wanted to do, but then again, I realized I didn’t want to do it all that much to begin with, so the fault was with me.

I took some time to dive deeper into the Octatrack as a live instrument instead, transforming patterns real time as part of the song, which got me to where I wanted.

Again, this was because my need for a more linear approach was imaginary. Had it been more acute or real, the MPC might still be an option, though I wonder if not one of Roland’s machines as suggested earlier in the thread would’ve been the better way to go then.

14

KOTARE,

What’s missing? I know there are tons, but depending on what you put into the Octatrack, you need different things. So it’s a preference thing as well, as you said yourself.

So in your opinion, what’s the most glaring omissions? Disregarding what I do with it, looking instead of what you do with it.

What’s missing in the Octatrack brain for you to use it as a master device?

15

For me personally?

The comp algorithms at gentle settings aren’t good enough for a mbuss, compared to good VSTs or hardware, leaving an unglued sound.

No multi band compression and no multi band buss EQ, both of which are needed because the EQ per track, while find for basic sculpting, is not surgical or flexible enough to be a stand alone unit, for me.

But, as a sound creator it’s brilliant.

1 Like
16

Yep, that’s more or less what I feel too. If everything that goes into the Octatrack needs a lot of work to fit together, the EQs and compressions in there aren’t up for the task. You can get something decent out of it, but it tends to get blurry if there’s too much rough source material in there.

However, this is a gradient. Depending on what you want to sound like, and what you put in there, there are times when the end result can reach an almost finished level, I think. It’s just that if you pour really crude things in the machine, the tools aren’t enough to sharpen it to a crisp and clear quality.

But that could easily be a sound in itself, I suppose.

17

Soundwise you can get a decent mix out of ot. It really depends on what you feed it with. Compressor of ot is not that powerful for mastering. I mean its great but not THAT great. I don’t think ot has a specific signature sound like mpc or sp or any other synth. But on the other hand ot is made for resampling. When resampling you can really get nice mixes and then put the compressor on your resampled sample. It does glue it out pretty well. Recently I ditched my computer and made this powerful resampling workstation.

image.jpg2208×1236 382 KB


Octatrack as main tool for sculpting and sequencing sounds.
Virus and ultranova as soundsource.
Jomox as a sweet sound fattener and filter or stereo widener on cue out.
Sp 404sx for resampling everything on pads and FX which are great by the way. Then chop and play back into OT trough KP3 with some fx if i want. I will get rid of kp3 because it sucks with audio input clipping and midi clock drifting away…
Everything else is midi driven + synced. Works great and delay compensation does its job.
I put akai s3200 trough ultranova inputs and there i have an mpd acting like mpc. It is just for playing chops. No sequencing on akai. Need midi splitter…
From there i do the same thing over and over again.
I end up with many fine mixed resampled samples on sp pads and play them live or sequence them back into OT for final composition still doing a resample method on every pattern. There i put the OT into a mastering mode with many neighbor tracks and a compressor on master track. Must say this way i can really compress the sound and get it to a mastering stage. In the end i will always do mastering on outboard limiter and eq.

It demands a great deal of work but you get stuff done creatively.

18

Sorry to crash your party, but the OT is everything but analogue. In fact its a computer with a tiny display and a very special keyboard. All your sounds, loops and chords get digital once they are recorded by the OT.

19

Sorry to crash your party, but the OT is everything but analogue. In fact its a computer with a tiny display and a very special keyboard. All your sounds, loops and chords get digital once they are recorded by the OT.

[/quote]
from what i’ve read analog recorded onto a digital format will be digital but basically the sound retains it’s analogous sound attributes. especially if you record at the higher 24 bit rate.
anyway, who cares about this anymore? unless you refuse to release your music on anything but vinyl or tape, it must enter the digital stage somewhere.
ok, you could also play analog gear live but even still, some venues use digital desks now so…

20

The octatrack is digital. And NO… Pretty much all digital conversion results in the loss of some sound quality. It’s just the nature of the beast.

The octatrack does not possess the feature set to do mastering. No M/S, no accurate metering, no scopes, no accurate limiting, and no surgical EQ. And many other things you would require if you wanted to master your own tracks. (I’ve been a mastering guy for many years. I still won’t master my own tracks. For many reasons.)

Now… is digital mastering bad? NOPE. It can actually be better than using all discrete analog hardware. Analog tolerances aren’t as good many times, and analog mastering studios have all sorts of quality issues of their own to deal with.

My advice is assuming you are summing everything externally, either via an outboard analog mixer, or via a summing bus in conjunction with a good audio interface.

After the mix has been done…

My advice? Track everything into a good mastering program (NOT A DAW). Wavelab and Magix are very good for this. If you are a hi fi type of guy and want the best quality, you should invest in a very good Analog to Digital conversion. 2 channels are all you will need if you plan to master with a computer and no outboard mastering hardware. And you will need digital to analog converter to properly hear what you are doing.

Lastly, you need a good room to master (or mix) in. The room makes as much of a difference as anything else. Even more so.

You will need more channels and a mastering-specific hardware bussing system to use outboard correctly in a hybrid setup. Don’t bother unless it’s your passion.VERY EXPENSIVE.

For a basic Mastering quality converter, look at lavry, antelope audio, benchmark, apogee, burl, lucid, etc.