OP sounds like my older brother. great ideas. zero follow through.
also "powerhouse sofa jam box ASAP" get an op1 duhhhh
Haha. Possibly. Truth is I’m too busy trying to find time to ‘play’ instruments to have any to seriously think about making one… But I still notice when limitations slow or kill an idea on current hardware.
Yeah op is amazing for sofa jams. Until I run out of space for patches or tape… Then it’s vibe killer/PITA to backup/clear/take notes on snapshots for later naming etc. Especially when you have a 1yr old and a 2yr old climbing all over you…
If you are serious about this then picking one of the many dev boards would be a good start, maybe this one http://bela.io/
If you want something a little simpler then axoloti is worth checking out, you can make your own instruments with it once you learn http://www.axoloti.com/
I’d recommend these as it will allow you to see that something as “simple” as the OP-1 is actually not so simple after all, I get what you are saying re the limitations but the fact that no-one has actually come up with a competitor to the OP-1, in what 5 years is another indicator that combining all the features into a small sofa ready package is not a trivial task.
And don’t forget the OP-Z might be the droid you are looking for
What I was trying to say is that I'm surprised more people havent just totally replicated it, with only minor changes, but better spec. And this form factor layout become like a standard thing across an area of audio hardware. Like how things like RYTM/Toraiz/new MPC etc are all very familiar to each other. The organelle seems closest thing out there but it's way different still and misses the Op1 'all in one' vibe when comes to putting a full song together. Much cheaper than Op1 tho. £380 at digital village right now.
For instance people mention above the possible expense/headache of stuff like screwing the layout up and having to re-think/re-manufacture. But I mean it seems odd no one has just taken the current easiest/cheapest option (apparently the new mpc uses Linux and pretty powerful sounding board that costs $99 with 16gb mem, 2gb ram) would maybe be good option? And use the OP1 layout as a proven successful design, but just upgrade it to 8 tracks, ton more memory for user patches, expand the max pattern lengths, pattern memory, 2nd Lfo, more fx etc. I can't imagine comparable synth engines being very difficult to design to folks that are already doing that stuff? Same with the sequencer the types? It seems like it would be child's play compared to coding an OT alternative. Just seems like potentially a relatively risk-free, cheap, very likely successful road to take for someone with design chops and the time to do it? As people have pointed out above though, I'm probably not seeing the whole picture.
Keep in mind that there are always trade-offs. TE could have added more tracks, pattern lengths, LFO’s etc. but it comes at a cost. They have achieved a level of integration and efficiency unmatched on any comparable device. Adding all of that extra overhead would bog the OP-1 down to the level of a Windows laptop. No thanks:) A good example of a company attempting a similar product would be the BKE Beat Thang sampler/drum machine. They were on to a good concept, well spec’d hardware, well financed, big name marketing, etc. What they failed to produce was an efficient device that was relatively bug free. They attempted to cram too much into it based upon the misconception that since it was running an embedded Linux OS it could handle it. They are no longer in business. Korg is about the only company that could pull off a similar device at an affordable price, but they would rather sell numerous devices rather than an all-in-one device.
No matter what you do there will ALWAYS be someone pointing out "man, if ONLY it did THIS or THAT!"
Most likely the reasons for devices or software not being able to "do this or that" is down to cost or time.
- Is it REALLY worthwhile having our team work for two weeks just to have crossfader-curve functionality?
- We have to restrict the memory to 2GB as taking it up to 8GB will increase the end cost by £X of each unit.
etc etc ...
Then each of these little time additions and costs add up to make an unrealistic deadline or cost.
Yes it would be amazing, but not a LOT of people are going to spend £2k on a pocketable portable digital synth and sampler - it would be a real REAL niche market.
I wouldn’t pay £2000 either we’re just talking cpu/ram/storage advancement and parallel ‘features advancement’ kind of stuff tho right (besides the casing)? And tech stuff gets cheaper every year… Isn’t that rumoured mpc chip/board (whatever the correct term is like $99 and plenty powerful enough to make a very serious portable unit based on Linux? 2 grand seems like a crazy number!?
I was building on the idea of creating a “perfect machine” that’d please everyone as much as it could. If Elektron are charging £1300 for a 8 voice drum machine, a sampler, a 4 voice synth, I don’t think that £2k is lot for a hands-on single box that did all of the above and a worthy opponent to all the above combined and was something the size of an OP-1.
No matter what you do there will ALWAYS be someone pointing out "man, if ONLY it did THIS or THAT!"
Most likely the reasons for devices or software not being able to "do this or that" is down to cost or time.
- Is it REALLY worthwhile having our team work for two weeks just to have crossfader-curve functionality?
- We have to restrict the memory to 2GB as taking it up to 8GB will increase the end cost by £X of each unit.
etc etc ...
Then each of these little time additions and costs add up to make an unrealistic deadline or cost.
Yes it would be amazing, but not a LOT of people are going to spend £2k on a pocketable portable digital synth and sampler - it would be a real REAL niche market.
I wouldn’t pay £2000 either we’re just talking cpu/ram/storage advancement and parallel ‘features advancement’ kind of stuff tho right (besides the casing)? And tech stuff gets cheaper every year… Isn’t that rumoured mpc chip/board (whatever the correct term is like $99 and plenty powerful enough to make a very serious portable unit based on Linux? 2 grand seems like a crazy number!?
I was building on the idea of creating a “perfect machine” that’d please everyone as much as it could. If Elektron are charging £1300 for a 8 voice drum machine, a sampler, a 4 voice synth, I don’t think that £2k is lot for a hands-on single box that did all of the above and a worthy opponent to all the above combined and was something the size of an OP-1.
I guess that possibly makes sense tho Elektron boxes individually have more knobs+buttons/inputs outputs/analog elements in rytm and AK etc etc. I’d be pretty set with literally OP1 as it is but with a ton of memory for patches/tape sessions/patterns…
and if it was to be advanced elsewhere -
8 tracks (simple UI addition of 4 extra number buttons under the screen which could maybe be widened)
2nd lfo on synth (Page could be one of the extra track buttons)
Filter/drive to be added to synth parameters without need to use the FX slot. (page could be one of the extra track buttons)
Optional timestrech on samples so all pitches played for the same length.
Pattern tempo division/multiplier in all sequencers.
Pattern memory in Pattern/Arp/Endless etc.
Sequencer metronome.
Pattern max steps increased to 32 or 64 (wider screen accommodating the extra tape track buttons would make this feasible without needing to scroll ton of pages.)
Extra fx - tape sim. Amp sim. Wet/dry pitch like Sp404 etc.
Undo/redo.
Save/name/delete patches etc.
Drum sampler slice to transient option.
Nice ‘extras’ -
2 voice multitimbral. Jam out a beat and then experiment with synth without having to go to tape.
All of the above would be possible without messing with the ‘streamlined/idiot proof’ design etc. And cpu/screen wise it would be doable on the equivalent priced hardware today that the original OP was a built around back then. So the original OP would poss drop in price and the new one would be around the same as original op at today’s rates.
If TE drag their heels someone else’ll do it sooner or later. Underneath the cartoon graphics etc there isn’t a relatively huge amount of complexity to the individual elements compared to other stuff out there. It’s very cool how they’ve all been made to work together tho. Almost comparable to Elektron making p-locks work so well. Op has a great workflow that other companies should look at developing…
But yeah, feel like what was originally just a casual enquiry has turned in to a pretty pointless kind of lamenting as mentioned by someone else and people arguing with themselves
I think part of the issue that TE has gotten themselves into is with updating the OS. If they had never done that, or just called it a firmware update and never introduced new synth engines or sequencers, then this conversation would never happen. But as it is, they have created a device that some people look at as more of a iPad or laptop -type device. It enters the territory of “can’t they just throw a faster chip in there” or “why can’t I swap in more memory” or “they should just do these 5 things I want but also these 100 other people’s 5 things too.”
I don’t see them ever “upgrading” the OP-1 or entering a OP-1 and OP-1+ or OP-1 Pro business model. They did all of the hard work getting all of the existing hardware to work and now just have to think about software updates. As you can tell, just adding a “simple new feature” takes TE over 2 years to accomplish, for any given combination of reasons ranging from the technical to the artistic implementation. TE’s next synth is clearly different than the OP-1 in that it has a different (probably more restricting) set of limitations (with a lower price point). It may be that TE sees the OP-1 as the pinnacle of what they want to offer without people just having to pick up an 8-track recorder or use a laptop.
I think part of the issue that TE has got thy en themselves into is with updating the OS. If they had never done that, or just called it a firmware update and never introduced new synth engines or sequencers, then this conversation would never happen. But as it is, they have created a device that some people look at as more of a iPad or laptop -type device. It enters the territory of "can't they just throw a faster chip in there" or "why can't I swap in more memory" or "they should just do these 5 things I want but also these 100 other people's 5 things too."
I don't see them ever "upgrading" the OP-1 or entering a OP-1 and OP-1+ or OP-1 Pro business model. They did all of the hard work getting all of the existing hardware to work and now just have to think about software updates. As you can tell, just adding a "simple new feature" takes TE over 2 years to accomplish, for any given combination of reasons ranging from the technical to the artistic implementation. TE's next synth is clearly different than the OP-1 in that it has a different (probably more restricting) set of limitations (with a lower price point). It may be that TE sees the OP-1 as the pinnacle of what they want to offer without people just having to pick up an 8-track recorder or use a laptop.
Feels like kind of a case of more fool them/stubbornness if TE see OP1 as pinnacle of anything really. Seems like more of a starting point to me… A series that develops alongside affordable tech material prices and coding advances etc. Same as if Elektron don’t bring out something vaguely resembling an octatrack 2. Everyone on this forum obvs digs Op1 but a ton of people have bought and then sold them due to the limitations/annoying stuff etc. Same with octatrack. There’s an almost guaranteed market for modernised versions of both units that fix all the stuff that has persistently been asked for /complained about…I own OT and OP and I’d buy new versions of either in a second… I know it takes time and effort and money, no need for anyone to point that out to me again but they’d be great products. More useful/vital to people than niche/luxury items etc… And there’s still plenty of space/ui to fill before hardware is pointless and grab an 8track/laptop. Business is infinitely complicated tho and I’m just one opinion so I guess we just wait and see… Kind of pointless talking about it at this point.
@Callofthevoid What I meant about pinnacle was that they took a set of hardware and developed what they thought was best for that set of hardware, and have no interest in porting that same software to new hardware for the sake of “technology progresses and parts get cheaper.” You can’t apply the same logic of every other industry to the music instrument industry, because they are tools made for creative people by creative people. That’s like insisting that Moog make a polysynth just because it is cheaper to do that now than it was 40 years ago and they should offer it for as cheap as Korg because obviously if Korg can do it for cheap then so should Moog.
@Callofthevoid What I meant about pinnacle was that they took a set of hardware and developed what they thought was best for that set of hardware, and have no interest in porting that same software to new hardware for the sake of "technology progresses and parts get cheaper." You can't apply the same logic of every other industry to the music instrument industry, because they are tools made for creative people by creative people. That's like insisting that Moog make a polysynth just because it is cheaper to do that now than it was 40 years ago and they should offer it for as cheap as Korg because obviously if Korg can do it for cheap then so should Moog.
No one’s ‘insisting’ TE or any other company do anything… But constant evolution would be nice for potential users and advisable for their longevity/competitiveness tho…
Look at the history of MPC, Roland SP… They evolved in parallel with tech prices/advances etc. How is what I’m talking about any different from those units evolution? People seem to be a little too in awe of OP sometimes. ‘leave it alone, it’s perfect…’ kinda weird.
And please send me one of those poly moogs if you see one
@Callofthevoid What I meant about pinnacle was that they took a set of hardware and developed what they thought was best for that set of hardware, and have no interest in porting that same software to new hardware for the sake of "technology progresses and parts get cheaper." You can't apply the same logic of every other industry to the music instrument industry, because they are tools made for creative people by creative people. That's like insisting that Moog make a polysynth just because it is cheaper to do that now than it was 40 years ago and they should offer it for as cheap as Korg because obviously if Korg can do it for cheap then so should Moog.
No one’s ‘insisting’ TE or any other company do anything… But constant evolution would be nice for potential users and advisable for their longevity/competitiveness tho…
Look at the history of MPC, Roland SP… They evolved in parallel with tech prices/advances etc. How is what I’m talking about any different from those units evolution? People seem to be a little too in awe of OP sometimes. ‘leave it alone, it’s perfect…’ kinda weird.
And please send me one of those poly moogs if you see one
Funny you should mention the history of the MPC. If you look at it a bit more closely you will see that they didn’t really evolve with tech. advances they actually devolved. They devolved to the point that they became nothing more than computer-dependent controllers. The original MPCs work(ed) much better than the later units, which had supposedly better technology available, but were riddled with firmware bugs, many of which were never resolved. Thankfully, TE chose a better path.
@Callofthevoid You are, at the very least, insisting it is “advisable for their longevity/competitiveness tho…” That to me implies a sense of judgement that the current business model of TE is flawed and bound for failure.
I thought the OP-1 was “feature-complete” when I purchased it over 3 years ago. Since then they have added new features that I had no expectation of when I purchased it originally. I have the same expectation of any electronics I purchase. I purchase it as what it is without the expectation that it will be somehow upgraded via hardware or software to be better than what it is. I certainly would never fork out $700+ with the feeling that it is not as good as it could be but the expectation that it will someday be everything I dream of. As it is, you just have to accept that the OP-1 is the OP-1. It was never implied that there would be an OP-2, OP-3, or any future OP hardware versions.
Historically, yes, there were musical electronics that evolved over time to include more features and new hardware. This coincided with a progression in technology that made it advantageous to release something as new chipsets came out. But look where that lead the MPC line – the processing power of an iPad or laptop (which are now ubiquitous in music setups) was far better than what they could throw in a box. That is until single board computers came out, which is apparently what will power the MPC Live.
There will always be a field in which technological advancements drive new sales. We are currently in the phone/tablet boom. You see less and less of yearly new models of laptops. You see even less advancements in TVs. You see even less advancements in digital cameras. And so on. The technology required to make an OP-1 or Oktatrack or MPC has plateaued in a way that the newest and best technology is not required to make a new version. If they made the OP-1 today it may as well be on a DSP board instead of a single board computer. The Organelle has more advanced technology than the OP-1 and still doesn’t do as much at the same time. It really all comes down to what the designers want to create, and we as consumers can either take it or leave it (and if given the opportunity offer feedback about what improvements could be made).
@Callofthevoid What I meant about pinnacle was that they took a set of hardware and developed what they thought was best for that set of hardware, and have no interest in porting that same software to new hardware for the sake of "technology progresses and parts get cheaper." You can't apply the same logic of every other industry to the music instrument industry, because they are tools made for creative people by creative people. That's like insisting that Moog make a polysynth just because it is cheaper to do that now than it was 40 years ago and they should offer it for as cheap as Korg because obviously if Korg can do it for cheap then so should Moog.
No one’s ‘insisting’ TE or any other company do anything… But constant evolution would be nice for potential users and advisable for their longevity/competitiveness tho…
Look at the history of MPC, Roland SP… They evolved in parallel with tech prices/advances etc. How is what I’m talking about any different from those units evolution? People seem to be a little too in awe of OP sometimes. ‘leave it alone, it’s perfect…’ kinda weird.
And please send me one of those poly moogs if you see one
Funny you should mention the history of the MPC. If you look at it a bit more closely you will see that they didn’t really evolve with tech. advances they actually devolved. They devolved to the point that they became nothing more than computer-dependent controllers. The original MPCs work(ed) much better than the later units, which had supposedly better technology available, but were riddled with firmware bugs, many of which were never resolved. Thankfully, TE chose a better path.
That’s kinda facetious, you know what I mean. I’m talking standalone mpc. They updated memory options etc. And the rumoured new model extends that.
And not sure how you can say ‘TE chose a better path’, what path exactly? They only have a handful of products so far. I’d crack up if they announced an op2 was in the works next year. Y’all wouldn’t buy it cos it’s pointless/bad path? Yeah right
@Callofthevoid You are, at the very least, insisting it is "advisable for their longevity/competitiveness tho..." That to me implies a sense of judgement that the current business model of TE is flawed and bound for failure.
I thought the OP-1 was "feature-complete" when I purchased it over 3 years ago. Since then they have added new features that I had no expectation of when I purchased it originally. I have the same expectation of any electronics I purchase. I purchase it as what it is without the expectation that it will be somehow upgraded via hardware or software to be better than what it is. I certainly would never fork out $700+ with the feeling that it is not as good as it could be but the expectation that it will someday be everything I dream of. As it is, you just have to accept that the OP-1 is the OP-1. It was never implied that there would be an OP-2, OP-3, or any future OP hardware versions.
Historically, yes, there were musical electronics that evolved over time to include more features and new hardware. This coincided with a progression in technology that made it advantageous to release something as new chipsets came out. But look where that lead the MPC line -- the processing power of an iPad or laptop (which are now ubiquitous in music setups) was far better than what they could throw in a box. That is until single board computers came out, which is apparently what will power the MPC Live.
There will always be a field in which technological advancements drive new sales. We are currently in the phone/tablet boom. You see less and less of yearly new models of laptops. You see even less advancements in TVs. You see even less advancements in digital cameras. And so on. The technology required to make an OP-1 or Oktatrack or MPC has plateaued in a way that the newest and best technology is not required to make a new version. If they made the OP-1 today it may as well be on a DSP board instead of a single board computer. The Organelle has more advanced technology than the OP-1 and still doesn't do as much at the same time. It really all comes down to what the designers want to create, and we as consumers can either take it or leave it (and *if* given the opportunity offer feedback about what improvements could be made).
I’m not even moaning about the Op1!? I love it. Simply saying that I’d be down for a sequel. From TE or elsewhere. Bizarre thread…
@Callofthevoid What I meant about pinnacle was that they took a set of hardware and developed what they thought was best for that set of hardware, and have no interest in porting that same software to new hardware for the sake of "technology progresses and parts get cheaper." You can't apply the same logic of every other industry to the music instrument industry, because they are tools made for creative people by creative people. That's like insisting that Moog make a polysynth just because it is cheaper to do that now than it was 40 years ago and they should offer it for as cheap as Korg because obviously if Korg can do it for cheap then so should Moog.
No one’s ‘insisting’ TE or any other company do anything… But constant evolution would be nice for potential users and advisable for their longevity/competitiveness tho…
Look at the history of MPC, Roland SP… They evolved in parallel with tech prices/advances etc. How is what I’m talking about any different from those units evolution? People seem to be a little too in awe of OP sometimes. ‘leave it alone, it’s perfect…’ kinda weird.
And please send me one of those poly moogs if you see one
Funny you should mention the history of the MPC. If you look at it a bit more closely you will see that they didn’t really evolve with tech. advances they actually devolved. They devolved to the point that they became nothing more than computer-dependent controllers. The original MPCs work(ed) much better than the later units, which had supposedly better technology available, but were riddled with firmware bugs, many of which were never resolved. Thankfully, TE chose a better path.
That’s kinda facetious, you know what I mean. I’m talking standalone mpc. They updated memory options etc. And the rumoured new model extends that.
And not sure how you can say ‘TE chose a better path’, what path exactly? They only have a handful of products so far. I’d crack up if they announced an op2 was in the works next year. Y’all wouldn’t buy it cos it’s pointless/bad path? Yeah right
Not facetious at all. I’m also talking standalone MPCs. Akai did update the RAM, storage, etc. but they constantly rushed buggy new products to market using less reliable components while abandoning their original products, even flagship models such as the MPC 5000. I’m glad that T.E. chose to release a well designed, stable product and continue to support it and add new features rather than abandoning it in favor of the “next big thing”.
@Callofthevoid What I meant about pinnacle was that they took a set of hardware and developed what they thought was best for that set of hardware, and have no interest in porting that same software to new hardware for the sake of "technology progresses and parts get cheaper." You can't apply the same logic of every other industry to the music instrument industry, because they are tools made for creative people by creative people. That's like insisting that Moog make a polysynth just because it is cheaper to do that now than it was 40 years ago and they should offer it for as cheap as Korg because obviously if Korg can do it for cheap then so should Moog.
No one’s ‘insisting’ TE or any other company do anything… But constant evolution would be nice for potential users and advisable for their longevity/competitiveness tho…
Look at the history of MPC, Roland SP… They evolved in parallel with tech prices/advances etc. How is what I’m talking about any different from those units evolution? People seem to be a little too in awe of OP sometimes. ‘leave it alone, it’s perfect…’ kinda weird.
And please send me one of those poly moogs if you see one
Funny you should mention the history of the MPC. If you look at it a bit more closely you will see that they didn’t really evolve with tech. advances they actually devolved. They devolved to the point that they became nothing more than computer-dependent controllers. The original MPCs work(ed) much better than the later units, which had supposedly better technology available, but were riddled with firmware bugs, many of which were never resolved. Thankfully, TE chose a better path.
That’s kinda facetious, you know what I mean. I’m talking standalone mpc. They updated memory options etc. And the rumoured new model extends that.
And not sure how you can say ‘TE chose a better path’, what path exactly? They only have a handful of products so far. I’d crack up if they announced an op2 was in the works next year. Y’all wouldn’t buy it cos it’s pointless/bad path? Yeah right
Not facetious at all. I’m also talking standalone MPCs. Akai did update the RAM, storage, etc. but they constantly rushed buggy new products to market using less reliable components while abandoning their original products, even flagship models such as the MPC 5000. I’m glad that T.E. chose to release a well designed, stable product and continue to support it and add new features rather than abandoning it in favor of the “next big thing”.
Ugh… OK fine. People keep twisting the argument or changing it to validate their point. I said you were facetious by mentioning Akai hybrid controllers to validate your point. True, no? Akai standalone hardware did update no? And Roland SP. And probably ton of other hardware. We weren’t talking about OS bugs etc.
Re software I’d say the OP OS may have been stable but OP is only now really bug free as the new OS finally fixes the pops/clicks in tape. Dunno how people lived with that for so long…and it took a longgggg time which no doubt would have been less if TE were focused on OP development instead of OPz, designing cameras and so on… It’s not such a praiseworthy ‘path’ when you think about it. Don’t get me wrong, I love OP1 and I like TE. But let’s be realistic…
I had a look back over the thead to pull out the main opinions and here are mine.
A significant portion of the cost of the OP-1 is for the design and development rather than the bits and pieces of hardware, and I feel my money is well spent.
It would not be easy (on the scale of writing an app) for anyone to copy/improve the OP-1.
I was perfectly happy with my OP-1 from new. I would still have kept it, regardless of any upgrade.
I and many musicians who depend on their instruments need those instruments to be stable and do in tonight’s performance or studio session the same thing they did last night.
An OP-1 is not an iPhone. Neither is it the mechanism I want to use to get my consumerist fix of pseudo-necessary technical change.
I had a look back over the thead to pull out the main opinions and here are mine.
A significant portion of the cost of the OP-1 is for the design and development rather than the bits and pieces of hardware, and I feel my money is well spent.
It would not be easy (on the scale of writing an spp) for anyone to copy/improve the OP-1.
I was perfectly happy with my OP-1 from new. I would still have kept it, regardless of any upgrade.
I and many musicians who depend on their instruments need those instruments to be stable and do in tonight’s performance or studio session the same thing they did last night.
An OP-1 is not an iPhone. Neither is it the mechanism I want to use to get my consumerist fix of pseudo-necessary technical change.
CB
I feel like people are arguing for the sake of it a little.
Yeah it would be difficult for anyone to copy/improve on OP1. But that’s a given. Not sure why people are insistent on stating the obvious. Look at what that guy just built with the deluge. Is he the only guy on planet earth with comparable chops/motivation to TE/Elektron etc? I know Deluge isn’t the same thing. But seems comparable in terms of depth.
I’ve just been trying to say that the spec is becoming dated/affordable. Op does what it does great and I use it almost every day. But nothing wrong with hoping to see someone bring out an Op2 style device that does away with the stuff that is total vibe killer/hassle/pita. Mostly memory/backup/naming/saving related. Anything else would be a bonus.
Roland did it with the Sp404 to Sp404sx. That wasn’t for ‘pseudo technical change’. The tweaks were useful and asked for. Altho they did screw some fx etc up in the wash Roland are good at that tho…
The KDJ-One was mentioned earlier. That was due to be out a 1 1/2 years ago, was it not?
While it looks interesting in that it does a lot of stuff that the OP-1 can’t, the interface seems so touch-screen dependent that you are getting so much closer to being better off just working on an iPad with an external midi controller for a bit of tactility.
If it ever materialises, it will be interesting to see how it performs, though, and what people having used both OP-1 and it will compare the two.
I think there is definitely a market for more devices that are self-contained portable audio production studios, but finding the right balance of features to ease of use can be tricky, and though it has its constraints, I think TE gets very close to the sweet spot with the OP-1, the features being so limited they are never more than two key presses away. Once you add a touch screen and deeper menus, one really has to start comparing any such device to a tablet with its less limited possibilities.
As any artist knows, or should know, it often helps working within clear limitations, and if your equipment creates those limitations for you, that can be easier than setting them for yourself. Clear constraints combined with ease of use can be very inspirational, and it can allow you to express more.
The OP1 (which we all love) is starting to be considered “dated”.
From a hardware side, why is this: processor and I/O.
So what if TE came out with a device that uses an external processor for all of the synth/seq/recording etc, and external I/O that attach to it?
Then you wouldn’t have to worry about the CPU/DSP being obsoleted right when it finally goes to market. If it could merely use a smartphone or a tablet, those devices could use apps from TE that has the user experience, and the hardware could be simpler and not as prone to becoming dated.
The smartphone/tablet engine could be upgraded by the user as they become more powerful and as new interfaces (USB c, Bluetooth midi, etc) become adopted.
The hardware from TE could resemble the OP1, but wouldn’t need a screen as that would be on the smartphone/tablet.
Roland are good at that tho…