cool, yeah, no worries about English…
however, with these kind of products its important to not generalise ‘problems’ , as people get the confused… (this is why as you said, others thought, you were ‘mistaken’)
ah, ok… I ‘only’ have an octatrack (in the Elektron range)
but, what you are saying (if it applies to the Octatrack !)
if I use Hapax to trigger samples on the Octatrack via midi, it will ignore any trigless locks I place on that track…
I’ll give it a go … see how it turns out , and report back
honestly, this is not how I tend to work with the Octatrack and external sequencers
(I used the Pyramid a lot before the hapax)
my approach is:
I use the internal sequencer on the Octatrack , and just clock it from the Hapax.
simply, because it feels easier to program ‘on the device’ (octatrack)
I mean, why program the (note) patterns on the Hapax, and then start doing the automation on the Octatrack… its splitting up the sequence over two machines.
also, to use the power of the octatrack, I use scenes… so need the crossfader … again thats easier to do on the box itself
I guess, you could take the opposite approach… treat the Octatrack purely as a sound machine…
in which case, you can do the exact opposite
program all notes and automation on the hapax , and use the CCs of the octatrack to control the parameters.
for sure, this is nice from a ‘everything in one place’ perspective, but you loose alot of the immediacy of the octatrack.
(I guess the one use-case I can see for this is going beyond the stupid 64 steps of the Elektron sequencers )
I just dont really see the advantage of doing it in kind of a half n’ half manner.