@mschurenko I feel like they already do think of it that way considering the current state of both devices. For the future, i hope so too, but in terms of shared features , i think they will be careful with that to keep a solid distinction between the 2 devices. Too much would do the opposite
likewise. and from a “field system” perspective, there are still a few features that are feasible and within reach on the op1f in conjunction with tp7 and tx6 etc.
Interesting. Is it a huge improvement of the keyboard? Did they implement a differing system opposed to op1f?
Dude, it MUST be because we’re guitarists and non-electronic musicians primarily first and foremost that we feel oddly in the minority. We see our devices nearly the same way, and the xy as well. Glad to be in good company.
I’m sure one day when they go on sale or a great used piece comes along we’ll both get one, but with the Z , you’re good; and with the ko2 I’m good + our op1s
1 Like
Reason I don’t want the xy is
- I JUST lost my op-z
- I finally learned the ko2 I avoided due to the op-z
- now my op1f+ ko2 is the best combo I ever could’ve imagined
I can’t imagine putting what I just found to be a perfect combo aside for a product 10x the cost of the ko2, for basically a super opz field (in the XY) since the main purpose is drums (and sometimes bass) and ofc samples … I love love love the XY and Z but midi step sequencing is very tedious to me sometimes and I much prefer getting it as close as I can with audio
1 Like
The XY has Cherry MX ULP switches. They feel very very nice and are a big upgrade to OP-1f.
2 Likes
Just got the OP-XY myself… and I have to say, with 1920ppqn, and that you can record events to the sequence by holding REC and playing whatever you want, it does give you a very similar experience to recording to tape on the OP-1. Sure the samples won’t ever be exactly where you hit, but I’d argue that the 1920ppqn certainly could get you close. Fundamentally though the differences to me come down to how people approach music.
As artists in any medium, we get the luxury of deciding what parts we manipulate, which mistakes we remove or leave, as well as considering what interests us versus what might interest our listeners. It gives us a lot of freedom and power, but it also pushes us to have to consider what ‘perfection’ may look like.
For me, the OP-1 tape method really forces you to commit to what you have played or accept that some of the mistakes and variations may actually add to an overall performance. There so much more room for dynamic play, feeling rhythms and grooves, and stepping away from the very much on the grid style that you tend to get with sequencers. I feel like the OP-1 style of making music is far more playful, but I also understand why it is so frustrating because it really relies on the artist to practice deeply to hone their art.
On the other side, the OP-XY (and sequencers in general) tend to be very easy to get something that sounds decent by following simple patterns, without as much mechanical practice. Sure you need to learn the “isms” of the device itself, but at a surface level they can be easier to learn and work with. If you make a mistake they are typically very easy to go in and fix, and doing micro edits can be very quick to do without a lot of work, since you can jump around a timeline at will.
Personally the two methods are quite complementary, but each asks something different of the musician. The OP-1 really asks you to practice your chosen instruments and playing styles, learning timings, knowing that repetition will lead you to mastery to play things as you hear them and along with others. The OP-XY gives you the tools to edit the minutia of details of a track down to an incredibly small detail, and will reward taking the time to learn how to program to a very deep level.
So I’m happy to have both, and let each one push me in a different direction. I’m definitely seeing that I’ll be far more comfortable and at home with the OP-XY for how I generally create music, but I also absolutely appreciate the beauty of just playing something and recording it, imperfections and all.
8 Likes
How do you know that’s what they are? I thought they were custom.
If this is the case are they swappable to quieter switches? lol the keyboard is so much louder than OP-1F that it’s affecting my ability to use it in shared spaces lol sounds like I’m writing a novel on a mechanical keyboard
With teenage engineering, who knows. I already have a really powerful sequencer/sampler so it’s hard to really throw down for the XY, though it looks awesome. I’m happy with the field, but I’ll feel upset if they never do another substantial firmware update. It’s not really complete to separate itself as a tape machine without some basic editing features for loops like crossfades and a basic drum decay per sample. Like those things should be easily possible, and have been brought up multiple times. I’ve e mailed them on both of those years ago. Also seems that it really has massive potential beyond that. But it’s TE, so who knows what they will do. Could be a firmware update tomorrow, could be never.
1 Like
Looks like greatly stabilized on the edges to hold the cap and avoid wobbliness.
beautifully put and fully agree.
one thing about the 1920 ppqn – its an incredible resolution. i think with that resolution no one except for jacob collier could tell the difference in timing. the reason why i still am partial to the tape methodically for me personally is that i work more with acoustic instruments that i record live, which is not amenable to programming at all.
the two are complementary indeed. one day im sure ill get the op-xy one day, but for now the op-z is plenty to “complement” my op1f
1 Like
Wonder if one could replace/upgrade those oneself on the Field