Which ones?
Dear experts,
I am gassing to buy Analog Rytm but i m not sure if i should get Mk1 or Mk2.
I work 90% in the box in Ableton. I have DFAM, LXR & SE-02 & small acid box just for sound design & jaming to record loops I work later inside Ableton.
I want to use Rytm mostly as studio tool to design drums & drumloops. Analog mixed with samples.
What confuse me in Mk1 is its tiiiiiiny screen. Mk2 has much better screen imo.
Another thing is that i heard that Overbridge 2 works better with AR MK2 and more buggy with AR MK1. Is it true?
I m not interested in internal resampling cause i like to do it in Ableton.
Should I get MK1 or MK2?
Screen are pretty comparable. I think mk1 is slightly bigger. But mk2 is brighter, prettier.
If you need OB, I think mk2 is the right choice, although mk1 works rather OK.
Only thing that goes for the mk1 IMO is the good old silver boxes format, but in black the AR doesn’t feel that big.
Resampling is way more convenient that sampling in Ableton and reusing the sample. Day and night.
I went for the black mk2 and if I were to loose it for whatever reason I’d get exactly the same without an hesitation.
Also thinking about getting an AR. Used ones currently go for about 700€ MK1 and 1000€ for MK2. I am tempted to go for MK2 since I like the form factor for composing on the couch. Quick performance button is also very useful.
On the other hand, MK1 is a lot more convincing for using it in combination with other boxes or live due to its smaller size.
Two things would make a huge difference:
- Are settings like filter/envelopes nowadays updated on MK1 to look more like on current OS Analog Four? So that you can see the ADSR curve etc. instead of only a circle?
- Are the pads usable for live recording if I’m not a big by hand player using velocity or after touch extensively? I prefer live input via dedicated track buttons to step or live recording via trigs.
I don’t need individual outs, re-sampling or Overbridge. It’s pretty much down to display and pads that I am concerned about MK1. Also wondering if there is to much fct plus button inputs on MK1 compared to MK2.
Oh and I am not entirely sure about performance mode. MK1 also has dedicated scene and performance modes, just not a quick performance encoder, right? Do performance settings work like on AF or sliding on OT, where you gradually morph into a different sound? Or is it only going from A to B by hitting a pad without control over gradual change?
Also wondering whether updates will keep coming for both models and whether used MK1 units will show their age in a few years.
1 Like
Just one word: MK2!
2 Likes
You mean just in general or as a response to my use case specifically?
Except the size IMO in every aspect: Pads, keys, display, performance capabilities, UI layout etc.
Honestly I prefer to sample on the Digitakt. If I use a channel on the RYTM for sampling I feel like I am wasting valuable channels.
Could you clarify whether graphics showing filter/envelope curves are the same on MK2 and MK1? All videos and photos of Mk1 are showing only graphics of knobs. But I assume these examples are taken from older OS versions and it has since been updated on both MK 1 and 2?
At Elektron you can compare the graphics by looking at the manuals of MK1 and MK2 of the most current OS versions;
I have a mk1 and I love it, I personally don’t care about sampling into it, and rarely use samples anyway, I guess that’s the biggest question to ask yourself. The pads aren’t to my taste, but I tend to program it on the xoxo anyway, I think they’re probably better pads on the MK 2.
3 Likes
My mk1 is Next to my octa and i know if i got the mk2 i wouldn’t be sampling directly to it if this is the case. The screen looks amazing on the other hand. I do use samples but mainly one shots and single cycles and it is pretty enough because i use it for drums mainly. Analog rytm is an amazing instrument 
3 Likes
I own a MK1 too. The pads are OK and playable, but are indeed not the best out there. I also don’t care about sampling. The screen is good enough. And the small form factor makes it extra special. I bought one for €600,- and are very happy with it.
2 Likes
Lost money to trade in, sell, upgrade to MkII and no regerts personally. If you’re like me and it’s nagging you and maybe you are slimming down, refocusing your setup and you feel strongly that the Rytm is a keeper, then MkII is gunna be the only way to go.
rytm MK 2 
I think if you don’t do finger drumming, like me, then the pads are less of an issue. The MK1 is a very nice piece of gear and if you get a bargain like I did (and others here have it sounds like) then it’s great value for money.
The MK2 boxes look lovely, no doubt, but they’re much bigger and twice the price and they certainly don’t have twice the functionality of the MK1s!
2 Likes
Yeah I prefer the mk 1 size myself, space consumption is really important in the age of desktop gear.
3 Likes
Lately I’ve been thinking about upgrading from the digitakt to the AR and a big reason is to get the dirtier sound. If money wasn’t a consideration I’d obviously go with the mk2, but the price difference between versions is pretty significant. I know the analog filters/fx would help achieve the results I’m looking for, but I’m curious how much of the sound is due to actually sampling with the machine
Resampling on the MkII wouldn’t be much different than sampling an MKI to another device. The MKII just offers that in a convenient way. Sonically they are both the same. I can’t imagine the MKII pads are any better than the MKI
I’d say get the MKI and save some money
1 Like
Issue with the Mk1 is typically you don’t save that much money and half the people selling them have screen issues or something else plaguing them, but they still charge a ton. I have been able to find MkIIs for like $300 more that are mint. So while it is a bigger form factor, I love the extra features and also love having a newer machine that hopefully won’t fail so quickly.
1 Like