Thank the flex overlords at least there’s two of us now…
I hate part changes.
Btw in my last project I made a special part in Bank P/16 with my favorite settings, 8 Flex with recordings ready to play.
I love to copy that part.
What part don’t you like?
Parts are my favorite part of the OT.
It must have been upsetting to part with that project…
Anyway don’t my me, just playing my part, it took me awhile to find my part in all this…
“I do” Octatrack, till death do us part…
would you be so nice yo to share an empty project setup like this? I think I’ll have an easier time understanding what you mean if I can see it and touch it
If anyone wants the “paper” template I leave it here, you can comment here and in the document and we can fine tune it.
Maybe for the more experienced ones this is not useful, but for me is helping me to think like the Octatrack, and translate ideas to its language.
Just one OT part can be a template, there’s 64.
-One can say be 8 flex machines with drum hit chains loaded to be a drum machine.
-One could be some PU’s and flex machines set up to be a multitrack looper that also remixes the loops.
-One could be set up for a certain group of midi synths each with the appropriate channels selected with arps already made for the melodic instruments, and all devices cc’s configured.
-One could be for an entire different group of midi synths, maybe they are daw vsts, and they all have they’re cc’s already configured.
-One could take any live loop you made with the PUs and load it two 8 different flex machines with different fx. All ready with a scene that makes one of the tracks go full reverse, another scene brings up the fx, etc…
Just for a few examples…
I’d just start with one part and put some idea you have in there, then save the part.
As @Open_Mike already said: you need to think bigger. Parts are not just different samples on different tracks with a fixed generic workflow (for example: T8 master / T7 resample like in your doc). That’s just one use case - the simplest one.
Parts are complete setups and each can have its own workflow and/or usage. One part may be a simple mixer setup, an other part may be mangling 2 incoming audio streams each with a chain of 8 effects. There are endless possibilities …
That’s nothing you can put into a kind of excel sheet …
It’s true… A for effort with the spread sheet… But for this you need to go one “part” at a time…
Thank guys, I should start somewhere and see which use can I give to each part.
If I didn´t understood wrong, banks an patterns are not “stored into a part”, so I could have a part for the OP template, another to use it as a mixer. etc.
The problem I see is: if a pattern remembers the last part it was played with, when I change a pattern maybe I can be changing the part as well, and sometimes this is not what you want.
Edit: There are 4 parts per bank (4x16, as @Open_Mike said before). In each bank there are 16 patterns which remember the las part they ware played with.
I love how from time to time someone tries to unpack and project the hierarchical and combinatorial complexity of the OT data model into only two dimensions. The results are always beautiful and enlightening and overwhelming and lurid.
You got this while I was typing but yeah, there are 4 parts accessible per bank. Each pattern always loads the last part assigned to it, you can have all 16 patterns in a bank use one part if you want, or any other combination of the 16 patterns and 4 parts…
Trouble with explaining how to use the OT is that there are a million ways to use the OT… Maybe let us know an idea you want to try using a part for, or ask us for an idea I guess. Always best to not be in a rush and move one step at a time…
I commend the effort folks put into them but I understand the OT until I look at one of those and they never make any sense to me at all and just confuse me…
Nothing personal anyone, just sayin…
LOL, really my idea was to decontruct the multidimentional structure of the Octatrack in several 2 dimension tables.
Of course not to collect the infinite possibilities of the machine, but for get a better understanding of how different approaches can be done.
I´m not trying to do anything particular, but this kind of “exercises” help me to learn the Octatrack language.
It’s a noble effort. I’m impressed.
Especially understanding the vocabulary is important, since it is both non-standard (there are no real good standards in this area) and critical to communication.
Writing it this way (“the last part they were played with”) shows some confusion. Normally the assignment of a part to a pattern is fixed, because, well, the part is the complete setup for the pattern (which machines are used, which samples etc.pp.).
Switching the part of a pattern make only sense in very specific situations. For example, when the parts are very similar to each other (say, just sample changes on tracks, but everything else stays the same).
I´m sure once I start thinking like the OT, I´ll need no more this tools. It´s like leaving behind the boat once you crossed the river.
It´s not correct?
´Cause that part assignment to a pattern is not really fixed as far as I understand: if I´m in pattern 1 (part 1), change to pattern 2 (part 1), change to part 2, then to pattern 1 (it returns to part 1), and then again to pattern 2, it will remember it was the last time played in part 2, so the first assignment wasn´t hardwired.
Another use I think should justify changing parts is to treat them as kits, like in a Machinedrum.