An OP2 should be twice as big!
Hopefully not weighting the double.
More knobs, bigger keys, velocity, aftertouch, AM radio as well, and a theremin-like function too 
i have to say, if there ever will be an OP2, it would be great if all OP1 users could just "update" the DSP-board themselves (which of course will be compatible with the actual board. so the OP1 UI would stay the same and the new DSP board will have 100x the power). that would be swell!
hmm, maybe off-topic :-)
It is confirmed that OP-2 New Style is user upgradable. Any color laces of your choice. And you can lace them up in any pattern. That pattern is then saved until re-lacing. See the separate thread for more details.
Can someone remind me where one finds the arp, how it works?
An OP2 should be twice as big!Hopefully not weighting the double.More knobs, bigger keys, velocity, aftertouch, AM radio as well, and a theremin-like function too :P
I donāt think this device should have more controls. That would go against its unique, playful design.
However I see other limitations that should be solved. For example a dedicated EQ for synth/drum, maybe next to the mono effect slot. It is annoying to always put a run into tape, re-sample with EQ and then put that back to where I want it to use.
An OP2 should be twice as big!Hopefully not weighting the double.More knobs, bigger keys, velocity, aftertouch, AM radio as well, and a theremin-like function too :PI donāt think this device should have more controls. That would go against its unique, playful design.
However I see other limitations that should be solved. For example a dedicated EQ for synth/drum, maybe next to the mono effect slot. It is annoying to always put a run into tape, re-sample with EQ and then put that back to where I want it to use.
I donāt get it when people say ākeep it simpleā. More depth under the hood and more knobs/parameters would be amazingā¦
But yeah, agreed that synth/drum patches would benefit a lot from an eq/filter/drive per patch. And a 2nd LFOā¦ Would make it a lot more ācompleteā for sound designā¦ Donāt think itāll happen in an OS update on this hardware tho.
And I think the sequencers need priority attention if TE do continue to developā¦ Stuff like tempo multiplier/division on all sequencer types (they nailed this on the Arp so it should be possible?) and extended max step amount on Pattern. Dedicated metronome for sequencer real-time input. The sequencers are painfully basicā¦ Fun to use for the kind of stuff they excel at. But for a lot of stuff it feels like ballache limitationsā¦
i have to say, if there ever will be an OP2, it would be great if all OP1 users could just "update" the DSP-board themselves (which of course will be compatible with the actual board. so the OP1 UI would stay the same and the new DSP board will have 100x the power). that would be swell!
hmm, maybe off-topic :-)It is confirmed that OP-2 New Style is user upgradable. Any color laces of your choice. And you can lace them up in any pattern. That pattern is then saved until re-lacing. See the separate thread for more details.
Care to point me to said thread?
@NoisefluxSpoiler alert -- it's a jokeSorry for getting anyone's hopes up
Oops, no worries, Iām new here and read to fast I guess 
mine was a joke as well, although I keep thinking that the FM antenna can be used as a theremin on the OP-1
I would really love to see the Pattern sequencer get added functionality; 1) up to 64 steps, and 2) its own metronome. This could make MPC style beatmaking absolutely sublime.
I would really love to see the Pattern sequencer get added functionality; 1) up to 64 steps, and 2) its own metronome. This could make MPC style beatmaking absolutely sublime.
Yeah, a longer pattern sequencer would be very useful. And with its own rythm settings like the endless one.
one year ago i made a proposal to TE. Iām not good in english, so a made a visual.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io7ZbZTX2t8
1 Like
one year ago i made a proposal to TE. I'm not good in english, so a made a visual.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io7ZbZTX2t8
DREAM!!! Nice video!
one year ago i made a proposal to TE. I'm not good in english, so a made a visual.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io7ZbZTX2t8
Yeah, these kind of sequencer additions seem like no-brainers. Dunno why TE software designers have been so āitās fine/job doneā about them. Functionality in the sequencers could be easily improved without messing with the simplicity of the UI at all. I know you could connect an external sequencer and get all this functionality but for something sold with such a huge emphasis on portability etc the sequencers have some huge holes in themā¦
Iām about to sold my OP-1 but this is exactly the type of improvement that would make me wanna cancel the meeting with the buyer immediatlyā¦ sighone year ago i made a proposal to TE. Iām not good in english, so a made a visual.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io7ZbZTX2t8Yeah, these kind of sequencer additions seem like no-brainers. Dunno why TE software designers have been so āitās fine/job doneā about them. Functionality in the sequencers could be easily improved without messing with the simplicity of the UI at all. I know you could connect an external sequencer and get all this functionality but for something sold with such a huge emphasis on portability etc the sequencers have some huge holes in themā¦
Out of interest, any of the tech dudes have rough guess on how much memory a sequencer pattern would eat if TE were to give OP sequencer memory slots? Gotta be almost zero memory usage right per pattern right?
Out of interest, any of the tech dudes have rough guess on how much memory a sequencer pattern would eat if TE were to give OP sequencer memory slots? Gotta be almost zero memory usage right per pattern right?
I wouldnāt think this would be too hard to do, probably easier than translating sequences between different sequencer types. This is a feature I really wish theyād add.
Out of interest, any of the tech dudes have rough guess on how much memory a sequencer pattern would eat if TE were to give OP sequencer memory slots? Gotta be almost zero memory usage right per pattern right?
Yeah, Iād probably get an OP-1 again if it could at least save a pattern to a snapshot.
iād imagine a main reason why thereās no sequence-saving/copying feature is for consistencyās sake.
e.g. āsavingā doesnāt even make any sense for tombola.
and ālift/dropā in sequencers sounds like a good idea, but it also wouldnāt make sense to implement. Not just in stuff like sketch and tombola (which obviously wouldnāt translate to other sequencers), but each sequencer type has unique features. What happens when you copy your long Endless sequence, with sustained chords, into Finger? What happens when you copy your complex, multitrack Pattern sequence to Endlessās 4-polyphonic limit (if I remember correctly)?
TE has designed a set of distinct tools inside the OP-1; each has its own purpose, strengths, constraints. Tthey donāt intend for them to be interchangeable; if there were enough overlap between two things to just copypaste parameters between them, then TE would probably just merge those two things into one.
They also seem to be going for a sense of ācompletenessāāe.g. theyād be against having, say, a copy/paste feature exclusively between Pattern and Finger. Consider the Value LFO, for example; itās comprehensive, it can modulate any parameter of any synth or effect. They wouldnāt have added it if there were unsystematic limitations.
now Iām sure there exist little examples in the current firmware that contradict those ideas; TEās not perfect, there definitely are āmissingā features. (shift+drop? encoder presses?)
but they have a clear mindset that theyāre aiming to operate under
i'd imagine a main reason why there's no sequence-saving/copying feature is for consistency's sake.e.g. "saving" doesn't even make any sense for tombola.and "lift/drop" in sequencers sounds like a good idea, but it also wouldn't make sense to implement. Not just in stuff like sketch and tombola (which obviously wouldn't translate to other sequencers), but each sequencer type has unique features. What happens when you copy your long Endless sequence, with sustained chords, into Finger? What happens when you copy your complex, multitrack Pattern sequence to Endless's 4-polyphonic limit (if I remember correctly)?TE has designed a set of distinct tools inside the OP-1; each has its own purpose, strengths, constraints. Tthey don't intend for them to be interchangeable; if there were enough overlap between two things to just copypaste parameters between them, then TE would probably just merge those two things into one.They also seem to be going for a sense of "completeness"āe.g. they'd be against having, say, a copy/paste feature exclusively between Pattern and Finger. Consider the Value LFO, for example; it's comprehensive, it can modulate any parameter of any synth or effect. They wouldn't have added it if there were unsystematic limitations.now I'm sure there exist little examples in the current firmware that contradict those ideas; TE's not perfect, there definitely are "missing" features. (shift+drop? encoder presses?)but they have a clear mindset that they're aiming to operate under
Agreed, copy/paste between sequencer types would t make sense due to the differences between them. Pattern storage and additional features within individual sequencer types is a no-brainer tho. Longer Pattern sequencer (at least 32 steps) and tempo multipliers/divisions in all sequencers where it would make sense seem like crazy/pointless/bad ommisionsā¦ Like you can almost tell that Arp is the most recent cos it seems the most well rounded, almost like they just canāt be bothered/arenāt interested now to go back and polish up the others in spite of their shortcomingsā¦its a pity.