March 18, 2008 at 17:08 #734
I’m thinking of buying a Octopus or Nemo.
I use a lot of analogue gear wich some use cv/gate and kenton pro-2000mk2
I really want to use the octopus or nemo to sequence all my drumcomputers an synths like in logic.
Is this possible?
And what should be the best routing way for this using a emagic unitor-8 mk2 midi interface?
sorry for this newbie question, but i really want to know how many synths and drumcoputers i can hook up to the octopus or nemo.
SinosphereMarch 21, 2008 at 07:03 #1332
would you mind giving us a bit more specifics/detail about your setup?
In general you can use Octopus and Nemo to address 32 MIDI channels, including all controllers (CC) on each of the channels.
I understand that you would like to make Octopus something like the centerpiece of your setup, but to give you an opinion, I need to understand better what you have in mind.
GabrielMarch 21, 2008 at 15:28 #1333
My setup includes a tr-909, tb-303, sh-101, machinedrum uw, ems synthi aks, arp 2600 and some soft synths.
SinosphereMarch 21, 2008 at 18:00 #1334
what a wonderful setup (imo)!
In a quite similar setup I would probably setup an Octopus as the master clock and control the TR909 (one MIDI channel) and the MD (another MIDI channel) directly via MIDI.
The SH101, the AKS and the ARP2600 can be controlled via the Kenton interface, while I assume that the TB303 will run on its own sequencer (unless it is hooked up to the Kenton as well).
In terms of the actual routing, you have two outs on Octopus. So one out could go to the emagic box which will provide the signal for the TR909, MD, and the Kenton interface, and possibly interface to the soft synths.
Then you still have an out on the Octopus to go to some other, further MIDI target.
In any event, it seems that you will still have lots of resources on the Octopus to add further equipment down the road.
The bandwidth is similarly available on Nemo, but if you want your sequencing all in one place (i.e. no "delegation" to the TR909 and MD sequencers) Octopus is probably the better choice. If you do "distributed" sequencing, then Nemo may be the nicer machine.
Hope this helps.
Post edited by: gseher, at: 2008/03/21 19:03March 21, 2008 at 20:17 #1335
Yeah yeah yeah.
Drum programming on the Octopus is great.
It’s like when you’d see the grid for some of the digital gear Roland had such as the R8 or the 707 and you had the visual relation of where all the hits were falling, except now you can grab them all and move them without having to move around between edit screens.
Even the 909 16 step grid which is fun and fast seems archaic after you start using all the multiple tracks on the octopus at the same time and have different lengths running. I think you’ll like working with more velocity levels too rather than the couple accents provided.
I have a machinedrum myself and still use the internal sequencer in that because the step lock parameters work so well internally and I like the single step copy to multiple step pasting you can do on it once you’ve heard something you like on a step.
I will agree that you want the Octopus as the master clock..you’ll feel like you’re flying the spaceship around.March 24, 2008 at 16:44 #1336
Thanks for the reply!
The Octopus is the first piece of new gear on my list!
I’m thinking of buying one next month..
I saw on a video on sonicstate that the Octopus is also availible with black colored side panels?
That’s nice tough the Black sea is sold out..
SinosphereApril 1, 2008 at 21:43 #1341
Octopus as a centerpiece
I do the same with Octopus as Master and a Slave Mac with Live (incl. Plug ln`s in different Midi Channel), a Polar and a Monomachine plus Spectralis.
But this is not possible with Logic because Logic Pro to not accept Midi Clock In and it allways works in Track Mode (that means that the Octopus can only trigger one selected track at a time.:evil:
Post edited by: Dayflight, at: 2008/04/01 23:44
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.