All tracks are currently running at the same speed. Coming from the Elektron world, this is a limitation that means a lot of sequencer data duplication. For example, if your bass line and chord progression span over 16 bars, you may still want the drum beat to be only 2 bars long without having to copy and paste those 2 bars over the entire pattern length.
Having the track length be the full length of the pattern also means that you end up with an unnecessary amount of scrolling because your one note entry on step 01 is followed by 31 empty lines until the second note entry starts on step 33.
What should this feature achieve?
Allow each track to run at its own speed (e.g. 1/8X, 1/4X, 1/2X, 1X, 2X) and length (i.e. x < pattern length). A length < pattern length means it loops automatically within the played pattern.
So, rather than a sequencer pattern that looks like this:
…you could create a much neater track sequencer list that looks like this, but that’s using the 1/8X speed:
01 C3
02 - -
03 D#3
04 - -
This leads to way less time spent scrolling through long 128-step patterns and it means there’s a lot less duplication of data across a pattern. It also means that you can achieve 16-bar or even longer chord progressions without having to chain different patterns together. That 16th note arp can still play quickly on each 16th note, but the bass can play at a lower speed/resolution.
Are there any workarounds?
Lots of copying and pasting of data. And in the case of a 16-bar loop, having to chain two patterns together for the full chord progression.
Any links to related discussions?
Any references to other products?
The Elektron workflow (Digitakt, Syntakt, etc) are excellent sources of inspiration for how to do this.
Hey there, nice to see you here too. Thanks, that does cover the track length, but not the resolution/speed (1X, 1/2X, etc). Is there perhaps an equivalent one for that too? Otherwise I could repurpose this one to be about that and nothing else.
Ah, yes that seems like it might be it, though that’s an ask for an FX parameter to change the speed dynamically? It sounds a bit more technical than what I had in mind, which is essentially to copy how Elektron does it: you simply set the track’s resolution as a track parameter, not a sequencer line item’s FX slot. Perhaps it’s practically the same thing though and if so, this can definitely be closed.
Hm. true that is indeed an ask for a step fx similar to how Protracker used to have it.
If you want, feel free to rewrite this one more geared towards how you imagine it.
I’ll just add this as food for thought: Would it then be changable per pattern? Or would it be a global setting for each track that is valid across the entire song?
I think a step fx would be more flexible, but i also see setting it per track on a per project basis being easier and probably would cover most needs as well.
I’d probably want to leave that up to the product people because it depends on what’s easiest to implement and maintain too. From my perspective, I can’t really see myself changing which track I use for what part of the song anyway, so if I use track 3 for the bass, that’s the one I’d set a track resolution of 1/4X (for example) and I’d be fine with keeping that across the entire project. But then again if it’s a pattern setting, it also makes sense that it can be different on another pattern. Either would be fine with me.
Then i think it probably makes sense to reuse this wish for an “individual speed resolution per track” wish. The speed fx is definitely far more specialized than this.
I think it’s up to Polyend to decide then which one they feel is more practical to implement…
I have now updated the description to fit into what we discussed here. Hopefully this clarifies the ask and illustrates its usefulness well. Thanks for the feedback!
Honestly I was not asking for an FX parameter, it COULD be an FX parameter as well BUT I only want to be able to set speed as was in every Tracker to date.
You are asking for something like Maschine or Ableton does, syncing every clip to the others no matter the lenght.
I have no experience with Maschine so just to be clear, I’m asking for the 1/2X, 1/4X etc multipliers to do something like Elektron does.
Originally I asked for that in combination with the individual track length (also like Elektron does), but since that’s already its own separate wish, I tried to keep this focused on the multipliers.
This is what SPEED does on every Tracker.
This is why I have asked for it in the Wish List.
That said, how can a track of the same pattern goes (for example) 1/2x? This is achieved by doubling the space between elements. The thing become more hard for different grids.
I think that make more sense a function that can calculate this timing for you instead of having every Track going by a different timing.
Obviously, this is my personal point of view, that comes from decades of experience with multiple Trackers.
Dunno if this is something that can be implemented: bear in mind that you can do something similar in Performance Mode.
I suggest you to check the “SPEED” topic.
If the SPEED parameter is outside of the two FX slots, meaning a per track (in a per-pattern) parameter that doesn’t require you to set the speed on the first step (as that might be needed for other FX parameters), that sounds like the thing Elektron has copied. And if so, I’m fine with this being closed as a dupe of your request, if that’s what you want. Perhaps it’s your decades of experience that made me not follow what you were suggesting as it sounded a bit complex and technical.
The problem I’m facing with this community is that the majority doesn’t really know how a tracker works, and fill the forum of out of this world requests.
Again, this is my personal point of view, and must be taken with a grain of salt.
I’m not asking you to close this request or support mine, I’m simply saying that this function IS part of Tracker’s phylosophy
Sorry, didn’t want to sound rude.
EDIT: Let me try to explain in an easy way.
Tracks are the same as “channels” in every Sequencer: you can’t set a channel in Ableton, Cubase, Reason, Logic, Studio One, Renoise, Fruity Loops or Fasttracker2 to act “independently” from the song and play at e.g. half the time.
Instead, you can change the grid (quantisation) to fit the needs.
Look at SPEED like QUANTIZE, dunno if comes by my decades of experience but, every track doing different things would be a true nightmare for me!
Another way looking at it is that Polyend may be opening up the market to lots more people who aren’t coming from the old tracker world. That’s a good thing.
I come from the Elektron world and there each track is a sequencer track and can run at different speed multipliers. It’s very clever. I can’t tell if that’s the same thing as what you’re requesting since your analogy of “channels” to me means mixing channels, and this isn’t a mix channel but a sequencer lane.
Unfortunately your “easy” explanation isn’t clicking for me. Don’t shoot me. I come from a different world.
No problem at all, I’m not going to shoot you, my suggestion is to stay on Elektron then.
I bought the Polyend because of its nature: being a Tracker, so I don’t need whatever can offer a different hardware or software.
Never been around these things, I’m a simple producer / engineer, so my world is about DAWs, and never had tracks working individually.
That said, mixing is a total different thing, but I’m not going to bother you further
Honestly I was tempted on trying something like that but, I have no time to do this, and this would mean revolutionize my worlkflow, maybe starting from scratch.
Don’t get me wrong, my suggestion is this because if you have made few requests based on your Elektron experience, for me is more easy to use the Polyend for what it is, and continue to do my stuff with Digitakt.
I think it’s safe to assume that most people like the tracker, because it is a traditional tracker above all else. That doesn’t mean improvements can’t be made, but they should either enhance what is already there or be offered as an alternate mode of working with it.
But i’m also not against changing some of the traditional approaches, if it means that it improves on them instead of just replacing them in order to conform to more modern standards.
In this particular case, i don’t think the how it’s implemented makes much of a difference as the feature itself would be fun.
Yeah, in order to not distribute votes across two similar ideas, I’m happy to close this one. I don’t know how much votes come into play for the development team, but since it’s there, I assume its significance is at least non-zero.
Thanks, that does cover the track length, but not the resolution/speed (1X, 1/2X, etc). Is there perhaps an equivalent one for that too? Otherwise I could repurpose this one to be about that and nothing else.
