TE, can you please just update the Ko-II?
It really needs some improvement and a few big fixes .
Also the op-1f is pretty awesome as it is as far as the actual synths and fx (not looking for any new engines or sounds) , but can you consider a few of the improvements people have requested on the OP1f workflow, at least??? Small things like count in /threshold record or an undo ?
Thanks very much
(Forget the op-z; it’s been replaced by XY and it’s good as it is. )
we will def get both at some point, its not a matter of if but of when. i think the field is just more of a beast to maintain so it take longer than ep133 but im just speculating on that bit
ill be rude to you about the “realest sense of the word performance” part by saying the sum of the functionalities in the op1f is at most a subset of what the opxy can do. do with that what you will.
obviously, from a hyperbolized, selfish pov, i’d prefer every other TE device is abandoned for the sake of juicing the xy with as many features as possible. and from a bird’s eye objective perspective it’d probably be better for “music” that way.
I’m not really interested in generative/semi generative melodies, or randomized composition, or not being able to record”live” which is why the limits of the XY don’t work for a performance based music( - like recording guitar to the tape) that I am talking about . I would still like to have my op-xy or z back one day again; and to each their own, if it works for you , good.
while it lacks audio tracks (which, if it had them, it would deprecate the 1f entirely) you can still play it and record your playing as a midi sequence. you can even bounce patterns back to tape or record audio from the line input to the internal sampler, and if you’re playing on time you can play it in a sampler as part of the project. there are ways to get long audio tracks in there. i think the max for a single clip is 20 seconds but you can play bar by bar, record and play the bars back using thr sampler ezpz.
you can also make a huge pattern with very long bars and play a long tune. you can compose an entire track, divide the sections by scenes and move the scenes around to create your overarching song parts. you can make very long tracks this way. all of this is disregarding the ability to manipulate the song live by transposing or punch-in midi fx or tape effects etcetc… the 1f simply doesn’t come close to this capability.
there is a lot of stuff the xy can do that the op1f can’t. by contrast, there is a fewer number of things that the op1f can do that the xy can’t. however, within that fewer number of things, they have a big magnitude. furthermore, the design ethos and intention behind them are quite different. for example, the op1f is a 4-track tape recorder at its base. that changes so much about how the device is used and how one composes/creates on it compared to a primarily midi driven device and an aggregation of 20sec clips. the beauty is that between the two, you have a powerhouse, and selecting only one simply emphasizes one modality over the other.
personally im partial to having the 4-track tape recorder at bottom, which is like a lite-daw environment, with a swiss army knife of clever, deep, simple, and complex tools wrapped around it at your fingertips. it matters a lot that you can produce an entire album on one device IMO. not 2 devices. 1 device. that really matters to many people (myself included). of course everyone has their own inclinations at the end of the day.
you’re getting me wrong, it’s not an aggregation of 20 second clips… you compose a track onboard the device using midi. Same thing as you recording yourself playing a synthesizer on the OP-1f into the tape, except it’s not audio, it’s a midi sequence that plays audio. You can also make huge patterns by playing midi notes into very large track scales that can run for much longer than 20 seconds, and you can then sequence those groups of patterns using the song view to make an entire track made up of those patterns. Projects can contain huge amounts of patterns as well. The 20 second limitation applies to audio samples, and definitely does not apply to MIDI sequences, and it’s a limitation more due to the fact that dedicated audio tracks (in addition to the existing instrument tracks) aren’t a thing. And is it possible that they aren’t a thing yet? We don’t know. Trust me, I know everything about the op-1f, and have scoured its guides more than most users.
Your perception that the tape environment is more like a DAW than the MIDI workflow is wrong. DAWs are best at both workflows. For example, I am guessing that your perception of what a DAW is like is that you’re able to record your playing into the arranger and work on your clips in there. My approach on the other hand is to compose MIDI in the piano roll and arrange those clips. DAW’s support both. You could do the former on a multitrack recording device, and the OP-1f, but not the latter. You could do the latter on the OP-XY, and somewhat the former if you work around the 20 second sample limitation. Which is why I’m saying the OP-1 tape workflow is a subset of the functionality offered by the OP-XY. Here’s a workflow: You can record 1 bar of audio playback (you playing guitar or flute or singing or whatever) as a sample (i think you can do up to like 5-8 bars within 20sec, depending on the BPM). you can record up to 24 of those 1-8 bar clips into a drum instance this way, to be played on different keyboard notes. Then you can play those notes back, in sequence, using the sequencer. If I was recording myself playing my guitar, I would do it that way.
Of the two, the one that’s closer to a mini-DAW, is the XY.
I don’t see the value in comparing them very much. I prefer to see the OP-XY as a next-gen device, and I hope TE doesn’t kneecap its growth to justify the existence of the 1f (like choosing not to add audio tracks because “the 1f’s for that” or some bullshit like that).
i like the way you break down the approaching to constructing a track on the xy. this type of forum environment is not the easiest place to have a nuanced discussion, it sounds like we are talking about different aspects of the same thing. i love the xy too i should mention.
vis à vis daw: my approach and experience is with audio, not midi, as the final medium. the four track tape with audio as the primary asset is more core to my daw education and experience.
the only disagreement we may have is the relative value of audio vs midi as the final asset of a workflow. i strongly prefer audio and find it more valuable than midi as the final asset, not inherently though. the op1f offers something that the xy doesn’t in that regard and many folks may prefer it, and in my personal opinion, i think you may be discounting or undervaluing the 4 track audio based tape reel (agnostic to whether it is your preference/workfkow) and therefore are erroneously arriving at a conclusion akin to “the op1f is a lesser device than the xy”.
Yes I agree that audio is more important to me than a midi based solution. For example ; if I wanted to I could setup a software sequencer to send exactly what notes, in what exact timing and with dynamics, and have it run from my iPad or iPhone or Mac while I can modulate parameters and record live, while being able to improvise or add to it in real time, often with surprising results.
The op1F is as much a mini portable DAW as it is a spontaneous creation inspiration machine. The Z/XY is no surprises except for the programmed surprises you intentionally have random. It sounds like the guy is trying to make the XY superior to the Op1F when we know they serve different functions and opposite approaches (audio vs step sequencing)…I like the op-z and don’t see the need to go beyond it into a super version for $1.5k yet, but it’s not likely to happen anytime soon, if at all - most likely I’ll get a used one or one of those crazy sales when it’s under $1000…but the XY and 1F were meant to coexist for exactly what you and the other guy illustrated / different strokes for different folks
You and me are guitarists first and foremost Chris, and this equipment serves to support our music that’s instrumentally derived - electronic musicians who can’t play acoustic instruments don’t get it, almost like saying oh it’s Analog so it’s passe…but without the actual instruments to sample and copy, there would be no music to sample or copy you know what I mean
Anyway who cares man, this topic is so old and I clarified what I meant anyway. And if I had to do it over again I would buy the op1F again (ofc it came with the extras and it was a great price at 1700 [still lowest I’ve seen except someone said they were 1500 once] but still)
To me, the OP-1 Field and OP-XY compliment each other and I have them together on my table along with the TX-6, CM-15 (for my guitar) and TP-7. I use the TP-7 mostly to record my guitar practice separate from the electronic gear because it is far less fiddly than any other hand held recorder.
I also play “real” instruments - guitar and keys. I also use my guitar to tune my analog modular synth’s VCOs and sequencer steps (Behringer System 100 with 4 VCOs, two sequencers, etc.).
To me, the idea of “best” anything seems rather silly. We will see posts in guitar groups asking who is the best guitarist. It really depends on what we each prefer. Is the OP-1 Field or the OP-XY better? Is the OP-XY better than the OP-Z? It depends on what we each prefer. I could easily see somebody preferring the OP-Z over the OP-XY if that person has developed enough muscle memory to quickly get the music in his or her head out and onto the device. That is true for any of these devices. There is no universal “best” with these things and to me, such discussion is just so people have something to talk about in a forum.
we were talking about a nuanced discussion and you jump in here going “you can’t play an instrument, you wouldn’t get it.” I’m not even going to talk about the instruments I play to dignify your condescension. It seems the other guy got it, and you still didn’t get it, and ironically mention using external devices for control and sound design and even a fully capable desktop computer to sequence for a result that’s in any way comparable to the XY. at that stage you could use the TE tape recorder, or just work in the DAW.
Why are you like this? You can like the device without putting yourself over other people. It’s okay to admit that the 1f is functionally a subset of what the XY can do. It says nothing about you. And you don’t need to talk about anything outside of the comparison between the two, all of that’s just irrelevant. We’ve gone over the comparison together, even your point about “spontaneity” is moot because you can simply record yourself playing on the XY as extremely detailed midi with 0 quantization, and move that result around. You can sample whatever audio you want and manipulate that in 50 different ways before putting it into a sequence. I would say the only avenue in which the 1f has more depth is the fact that you can bounce and rebounce existing tape sections to apply more creative transformations to them. Which… now that I think of it you can straight up just do that in the XY as well to perhaps a greater depth because you can resample your audio output into the sampler, apply fx and do it again.
i can go on and on. there’s a reason i myself know everything about the 1f, didn’t get it, and got the xy for a significant stack of money more.
And let me repeat again guys, “functionally a subset of the other” does not mean “Badderer Than”. Be mature.
It seems I’ve gone off track from my initial criticism of this thread. Your pov seems to come from a lack of experience with the XY and some form of weird self-validation. Find better ways to push feature ideas and suggestions to TE instead of virtue signalling while shitting on other musicians.
TLDR stopped at condescension as Thats far from what I did but I know you’re type lol you’re just looking to argue. The op-xy is just as good as the op-1f and vice versa: main point is I can do all the sequencing the XY does from my iPhone iPad over usb….so I need something that’s more catered for actual instruments, especially the electric guitar as that’s what i do. Simple ,
Use whatever works for you ; the EQUAL flagship choices are both amazing and complement each other well too
I never used them both together yet. I’ll try it this week!