Moved
That is substantial for a battery replacement.. did your battery die?
I think it’s a super fine studio production tool as well, it’s just missing a few sound design specific features that would make it a better all-in-one device in my opinion. I also think that, while desktop format is my preferred format, the whole micro sized devices trend is imposing unnecessary limitations. Not a fan of the airas, volcas, pocket operators, etc. The OP format can easily be doubled in depth size without reducing its portability and yet vastly increasing the functionality and workflow. So this XL concept is my idea of the XY perfected.
In my latest mockup, I included dedicated 3.5mm midi in and out AND dedicated 3.5mm cv in and out, AND dedicated 3.5mm audio send and return.
In case TE is on here, I’d have to add ‘‘like they dont know this’’ that the XY engine (once complete) in a EP format (maybe 2x the surface size) would rock the groovebox world!;
not just in ‘‘what an awesome/superior instrument’’ reaction but also in record sales 
I’m all for plastic & light-weight; if its sturdy & carries that Star Wars Skywalker look 
we dont really need the 133 umbrellas and crazy train of color chaos nor do we need the expensive XY LCD blinking and blowing kisses every time you do a jump effect … 
As long as it can display waveform and has dedicated focus on workflow (thinking grid like seq view: ala OXI One (whereas you can view step components per lane among many other views modes) and respectable real-time performance factor (dedicated disk for tape, dedicated volume pots for buses) etc etc we will all be superstars 
I’m certainly interested in what more the EP format has to offer.. I was under the impression that they would be like PO XLs, so hopefully they do come out with more. The medieval was a disappointment though, compared to 133 
how about additional functionality through ipad software like the Z. its easy to implement. its been done before. it has the capacity to be an complete performance studio
usb audio out for 8 channels is easy to do
I’d like to respond from a product designer’s perspective — since this is really a design exercise.
1. On the physical / graphic side, it’s clear that the design you’re proposing doesn’t scale with size. The button sizes, their placement, spacing, and overall composition were all designed under the constraints of a small device. Simply enlarging it doesn’t work — you’d need to change the interface metaphor entirely rather than just stacking on more features. You might draw inspiration from the EP-133 K.O. II, which is balanced around larger buttons with more breathing room, or from a Roland TR, which is built with live performance in mind.
2. Which brings me to the second point: what use case are you actually trying to support? A groovebox is not a DAW — it can’t do everything well, but it aims to excel at a few specific things. TE’s grooveboxes are clearly built with that design intent. And it’s worth noting that even TE themselves admit it: this isn’t a live machine, it’s more of an arranger — which leaves it somewhat caught between two stools.
3. That’s also why TE deliberately ignores certain feedback. If you want to build the best possible product, you have to make strong decisions — bury or cut features in order to put others front and center.
4. So if you want to keep going with this design exercise, you need to pick your use cases and make different choices than TE to highlight those features — both physically and in terms of design. For example, you could go through the thread where people are suggesting features, and for each one ask the real question: why do you want a bigger OP-XY? For what kind of use? For which features?
1 Like