Where can I find the preset used on a track?

Hi,

I can’t find out where I can see the preset used on a track, except those who are locked that are shown in Lock folder.

Is there a way to see witch preset (and not only witch machine) is used on a track ?

Thanks.

Short answer is no. Longer explanation here:

3 Likes

Thanks a lot for the answer.

Elektron could have chosen to put them in the Lock Folder like the locked presets.
Okay, it will use 6 of the 64 memory slots of the Lock Folder, but are there really many people who reaches 64 locked presets in a pattern ? Or even 58 ?

Another thought here, if I understand correctly, you are interested in capturing the preset on a track in a pattern?

You could save the preset or the kit (and then load it up in some other context for investigation or reuse):

Does that help?

It may also help to remember that when you load a preset onto a track in a pattern, the data is copied, so changes to any parameters after loading don’t affect the saved preset, they only affect the sound on that track in that pattern (there is no sharing).

In one sense, it may be interesting or helpful to know that the sound on some particular track in some particular pattern was derived from this or that preset, but afaik no link or reference is maintained that would allow discovering that. For better or worse each sound on each track in each pattern is, in a sense, unique unto itself.

That was the point. Indeed, simply copying a preset to another track or pattern, save it or save the kick is actually the way to catch a sound. But I’d like to have just a reminder, even if it’s not essential.

1 Like

Totally understood. I find this copying behavior to be one of the main design tradeoffs in the Elektron universe.

(mild madman rant follows…)


The M:C has a separate (anonymous!) copy of each sound deep inside the pattern, with only inconvenient (but obvious) ways of taking a sound from one pattern to another.

On the other hand, the Octatrack has a single set of (named!) slots for the whole project together with yet another layer of abstraction called a Part, which enables copyless sharing of machine settings between a configurable set of patterns in each bank. On the OT, none of this is obvious at all, and the internet is overrun with profoundly confused folks getting rek’d due to unexpected sharing ('why does changing the filter on pattern A2 affect A1!?), and otherwise failing to leverage the immensely powerful (but, again, profoundly non-obvious) structural sharing.

After years now of contemplation, I don’t think one is actually better than the other.

  • The M:C style independent patterns are fun because of their simplicity, but they cut off some possibilities in performance because there is no way to have the same sound on two different patterns, edit one during a performance, and then switch to the other pattern with the edited sound continuing to play.

  • The OT style articulated hierarchical arrangement is fun because of the sheer magnitude of the space of possibilities; literally anything is possible, but hamper performance and composition because everything has an extra step. I’m always wondering if I’m accidentally tweaking some settings that worked well on another pattern that happens to have the same part, or taking an extra second to consider whether it’s time to switch parts, or which part had the settings I liked, etc…

1 Like