Just because 67% of the machines are percussive, doesn’t mean the sounds made by your tracks have to be 67% percussive, does it ? (Actually, given you can make nice basses out of the kick machine, even 67% is not accurate).
What would these new tonal machines be, given the scope that M:C is FM based ?
But, isn’t that outside the scope of M:C being FM based ?
you can make decent tonal stuff out of any machines, but still, it is designed around percussive sound. Lack of attack control, the punch parameter and the machines show that intent very well.
I would love some SID-like machine, chiptune oriented, think it would fit the M:C sound palette quite well.
Could also get some more beefy stuff like the SWARM machine from the Syntakt which is digital based.
A lot of complains could also be adressed by a Noise machine that could be use to layer textures on a tonal sound/Melody or create more percussive sounds like snares/hats.
The SY Bits is a Digital machine exactly like the tone machine is and the chord machine is aswell.
Theorically, if the controls were reworked to fit in the 4 parameters of the M:C, you could get SY Toy, SY Bits or SY Swarm.
Ok so I would love to listen to good claps on M:C and good OPL3 lofi drums. 
Before asking synth features for a drum machine, it makes more sense to me complete it as a drum machine.
Well that is where we disagree. It is already way more of a drum oriented box than an actual groovebox. adding more “drum” machines would only make it worse.
A noise machine could go a long way towards making lofi sounding drums while still being usable in a more “tonal” textured way.
Chord machine is very limited and tone is quite thin sounding making it pretty hard to have satisfying tonal sound design imo.
Yes, I think the M:C is a very very good drum machine that have a little groovebox side but I think it’s just some bonus. Elektron marketing team sold it as a groovebox but the machine is designed to be a drum machine. Even with 2 more tonal machines, it will still be a very limited groovebox (because of the lack of real enveloppe, only one LFO per track, etc…).
But with more drum focused machines, it could be better than now as a drum machine.
I do agree that chord machine is a weak machine, so why add a new weak tonal machine when we could have an awesome drum oriented machine like the kick.
Maybe you could make the user interface work as you suggest, but I get the distinct impression that the shared code underlying all the machines is FM.
Which might mean it would be hard to just add in virtual analogue machines like SY Swarm and whatever underlies SY Toy (physical modelling, maybe).
I would love to be proved wrong, and for the M:C to be turned into a syntakt-mini for free, but I’m not holding my breath.
The Chord machine is a wavetable synth. Definitely no FM going on. That’s 1 out of 6. One might wish for 2/7 or 3/8 if some machines were added 
My usual layout across the six tracks is kick, snare, cymbals, bass, lead, chords. 50-50 
Seems like everything is based on four operators though, even though they’re not actually FMing each other in the chord machine. So I guess an unfiltered supersaw (max 4 frequencies) might be possible.
But, it doesn’t change the fact that they rejected at least one machine that was considered in development, at least partially because it’s structure was radically different to all the others.
You’ve referenced my favourite thread on this forum a few times. I think I’ll go back and read it again 
I would love a supersaw machine, would be such a good sound for the M:C. Especially with how gritty you could get with the low headroom + overdrive + punch.
Yes they did reject one machine. But we have no idea why, and the machine might have been completed and given to the syntakt since then (it has been 3 years right?).
Monomachine was full digital I think but still had a lot of different machines, speech machine anyone?
Only 4 controls on M:C, so you will end up with either very limited sound design with basic filtering, or semi-limited sound design without filtering. Both things sound like one trick pony to me.
Already included in M:C with any machine + lfo on pitch or volume set to max rate. If you want finer control over noise then Cycles is not that kind of device.
It will not. Supersaws have different sound palette than anything on Cycles and require more control than Cycles can provide. The more harmonies you present to Cycles, the muddier it sounds both in low and high ends. Crossmodulation is a king here and it requires more precise sounds.
I do not believe anybody asked.
Did you design the said product? Are you in charge of the next update?
The point of adding machine is to add more sound design options. Using the ONE lfo to achieve something is missing the point.
We all know the tricks, the device is extremely simple.
We just want a more diverse sound palette.
Swarm can totally happen with 4 macro controls :
Tune = Pitch on M:C
Decay = Decay on M:C
Over= Volume+Dist on M:C
That leaves us with DET+MIX+NMOD+ANIM+SUB. which is 5 controls, easy to remove one or fusion two so they fit in a 4 knobs for controls design on the M:C.
Model:Cycles is not a sound design device. Again, if you want intricate control over the whole noise machine look somewhere else. You might’ve not asked, but you are clearly missing the point of the device.
“And I want one million dollars!” ©
Cycles has its own sound. It was designed with that sound in mind. What you are suggesting have been implemented in Syntakt and you can hear how Cycles’ machines sound there – weak, shy shadows of themselves. They kept the original character of sound and pushed it into the locker room.
M:C Decay is track amp decay. SY Swarm Decay is internal modulation decay. Swarm on Cycles will use only track amp decay hence limiting possibilities of the machine.
DET and MIX are essential. It leaves only two more controls to be populated by ANIM, SUB, NMOD, Filter Cutoff and Filter Envelope. Make a thought experiment and decide which of them you would like to use and what it would sound like.
Also think about Cycles’ DSP limits and whether it would be able to handle seven oscillators with three additional LFOs per track. Keep in mind that it should be keep working fine while all six track are populated by Swarm.
I think Swarm is unlikely to be ported as-is to M:C, but a tweaked version, absolutely.
I’d partially agree about it “not fitting the character,” but only insofar as I don’t think it would be the top priority for Elektron to port. Something like Bits would probably be a better fit initially; maybe Bits and Toy, then Swarm.
Don’t forget there are a couple of hidden parameters only available to the LFO.
This could be used to control the filter, freeing up a knob. (Or other params)
Keywords: Sound sculpting - maximum sound-shaping possibilities - Malleable - shape the formless - Synthesis in the model format
Repeat after me: 4 parameters for 4 knobs like on the M:C
Nobody asked I believe.
M:C Character is not a result of its machines, but of its low headroom.
There was even a hint of a 7TH MACHINE that was supposed to be included but didnt make it because it was vastly different from all others.
Or you could actually be smart and adapt the SWARM machine to the limitations of the M:C? It does not need to be a 1-1 perfect replicate to do the job.
Great talk 
4 parameters, no ADSR (not even AD), single LFO or envelope for modulation, monophonic, no modulation FX.
“B-but marketing department said it have maximum sound-shaping possibilities… Did they… ugh… wrote sugar-coated description to sculpt my opinion about the product? They wouldn’t do that, right?”
Just because you could doesn’t mean you should.
Yes, but somehow there are no frequency rich machines on Cycles. Everything is cold, glassy, woody and clinical, which leaves the required room to get noisier when pushed to the limit and not just flood the whole spectrum before even distorting.
It proves nothing since nobody knows in what ways it would have been different.
So go on then, be smart and instead of writing every other sentence in bold you could spend time thinking about such adaptation. Again: what parameters would you use, how would you implement them and how would it sound in the end?
Nobody asked for this either.
Fine tune and Gate. Both are track parameters, not machine parameters. Adding exception for a single machine is confusing. Adding additional parameters available for LFO for every machine requires rework of all of them.
TBF I beg to differ. Stream HEXASEX vol. 1 by SHADOWBAND - Performance Demo by topical fruit salad | Listen online for free on SoundCloud
And there is also a Pan width parameter. The point was they can add more.
