The chord machine sounds very fm with round and coloured sound. It’s very coherent with other machines. Syn Bits is totally something else and would not be usable as it is now on M:C.
The chord machine doesn’t sound FM because it’s absolutely not FM it’s wavetable.
The coherence you talk about does make sense but I think the character of the m:c with the distortion clipping helps making all machines sound good together.
I don’t think any of the digital machines on the syntakt (except maybe swarm?) Would feel out of place on the m:c I would even dare to say some might end up sounding even better, less clinical/clean.
The only thing that would need change for the bits machine is the fact that it has 5 parameters rather than 4 so you’d prob have to fusion the sample rate and bit rate reduction into a single encoder on the m:c.
You know that a wavetable can be build on the base of any synthesis ?
So, saying a wavetable sounds like a wavetable on its own doesn’t make so much sense…
I’m not saying that I don’t want to see machine as syn bits on M:C (I would love and I agree that it would expand the sonic possibilities) but I think that :
1.Syn Bits as it is designed on Syntakt would make no sense of M:C
2.It would make no sense based on the marketing made to sell the M:C
But I’ve already said this, and don’t want to argue more 
Have a nice day
It says it utilises the 4 FM operators as in, it’s a 4 oscillators wavetable synthesis.
It’s not FM at all, you can check on ess q&a m:c thread he specifically talks about that.
Technically, it’s this algorithm used (without feedback on op 4) so no frequency modulation on itself BUT it’s an algorithm frequently used on FM synths so I would consider it as FM synthesis. The particularity on chord machine is that every operator share a wavetable (thing that we can see on other fm synths too 
)
1 Like
It’s FM but it doesn’t use FM, so it’s not FM.
It’s 4 oscillators which play the same wavetable there is no operator no ratio no feedback it’s as close to FM as any other wavetable synths.
I’m not aware of any FM synth that allow you to synchronize 4 operators while sweeping through their wavetable and having them detuned to create inversions/different interval mix in chords created by the operators.
Would love if you could link me any FM synth that does that.
1 Like
FWIW I offered FM as an example of something that might lock in the architecture, I didn’t make a definitive statement about FM and I didn’t say FM was the only aspect where the architecture might be locked in.
Turns out (I didn’t know) Ess is saying something similar (but with insider knowledge I didn’t have)
Its not a question of locking architecture nor changing the code, he was saying its hard MAKING a machine, syntakt machines are already made and done. Backporting them onto the m:c wouldnt be nearly as complicated as making new machines from the ground up.
On the Chord Machine:
On the specific structure of the m:c and the 7th machine that got cut:
emphasizing on “a huge structure that can dynamically change”.
On the model:cycles using the same CPU as the digiboxes:
If you don’t change the model cycles code, you won’t get new model:cycles firmware. New firmware doesn’t happen by magic.
You know enough about the software architecture of the two different firmwares to be sure about that ? I certainly don’t know enough to make a definitive statement (my knowledge of that is zero, like nearly everyone here I would expect).
1 Like
Just read Ess quote on the subject? he is talking about “making” a machine.
M:C already had new firmwares updates in the past.
I did … I see nothing that contradicts what I’ve said
that’s not his quote, his quote is :
Keep in mind that at that time only the m:c had the concept of machines (outside of the older pieces of hardware like the MnM).
This whole thread is like arguing about the deck chairs on the Titanic – as it lies at the bottom of the ocean.
6 Likes
My suppostion:
… and what Ess said …
He is talking about making a machine from scratch, not backporting existing machines.
that’s what he is talking about when he says it “takes a lot of work” :
This process would be different as the prototypes of the syntakt machines are already made and done, the patches are already tested and the feedback is already received. Translating the patches to run on hardware is also already done (since they exist on the syntakt).
The only thing left to do is backporting the said patches onto the m:c.
1 Like
My preferred metaphor is more like schrodinger’s cat. One day Elektron may release new M:C firmware and on that day we will know if it’s possible.
Until that day, there’s a probability of it happening and a probability of it not happening. Nothing more.
And we will probably never know if it was easy/difficult/time-consuming/a trivial event.
I’ve not been arguing that it must be hard. I’ve been arguing about the claim that it must be easy, we just don’t know that.
6 Likes
I mean, have you?
I don’t know fuck all about anything, but I know you’re all wrong.
4 Likes
Did you see the word “could” in that sentence you quoted ? That means I was entertaining the possibility it was hard, not arguing it must be hard.