Maybe more like a special edition. On IG it’s posted with the hashtag T1milk…
The labels are all the same, so I’d be really surprised if it was different hardware. They were chatting a bit about ideas for new products on discord the other week, though
could just be a mk2/memory bump for future features. they mentioned they’re super tight on available memory
I’d be surprised, honestly. Unless they happened to have a pin-compatible upgrade of the same SoC, that’s a lot of engineering work for a product with almost no differentiation, and it would mean leaving their existing installed base behind on a roadmap that still sounds pretty full, which I don’t think they can afford to do as a still single-product company. I’m guessing it’s just cosmetic, and that we’ll see something pretty different from them in a year or so, and ongoing (possibly slightly slower, now that 3.0 is getting stable) updates to this hardware.
just throwing out speculation. home hoping for a cosmetic only instead of a mk2…
i’m not ready to buy a 3rd (yet).
9 Likes
Is the Torso’s sequencer better than the Elektron or the OP-1’s? What’s the difference between these, or is the T-1 great because it is a designated sequencer?
This is a bit like asking which is better, peanut butter or orange juice. They’re quite different things.
3 Likes
I’m talking specifically of sequencing. I know the fundamental difference between the three, but is the T1 overkill if you already have a great sequencer in the digitakt or the OP-1, which both have great sequencing capabilities?
I have and use both. In my view, you cannot really compare them in terms of ‘better’ or ‘worse’. There is a difference in the underlying logic between step sequencing (Elektron) and euklidean sequencing (Torso). The way I use the Torso is more to quickly generate interesting rhythmic and melodic patterns with a fair amount of randomization, automatic harmonic progressions (including polyphonic sequences), etc., whereas I use step sequencing mainly to program precise patterns (including locks on specific steps, etc.). The Torso also allows for per-step editing, but I do not use this feature a lot.
7 Likes
These are not mutually exclusive
2 Likes
Absolutely! Not a sandwich I’ve tried, but I’m not going to say it wouldn’t work.
With respect, your question doesn’t make it sound like you do. The kind of sequencing the others do, where you pick a note and a time for it to play, the T-1 is bad at. The place where it excels — describing a pattern for it to generate more quickly or with more complexity than you would have done on your own — doesn’t even exist on the other two.
So you’re asking to compare either the worst parts of the T-1 (in which case the T-1 is trash) or things that the other two weren’t made for (in which case the T-1 is essentially infinitely better).
So I’m not sure how to answer the question.
6 Likes
Thanks for clarifying and you did answer it in a way. I meant the fundamental differences that one is a sampler, one is a synth, one is a sequencer (obviously they have other attributes). Essentially, I just wanted to know if the T1 was worth looking into considering the Digitakt sequencer is exceptional (I have one) and if having another sequencer on board would be overkill. The T1’s capabilities seem a lot more complex in that regard, Euclidean rhythms etc. But Is it worth it simply for the sequencing complexity it provides? I’m not one to complain of price tags, but an expensive sequencer nonetheless. Is it that good?
1 Like
I think if you were buying it to sequence your Digitakt the answer would be, don’t.
Stick with the Digitakt’s sequencer.
The Elektron sequencing style is very specific. You hold a trig and adjust what you want for that trig. It’s very precise, and gives you a lot of control, you can of course use probability and lfos to select samples, but other than that it’s very much up to you.
If however you wanted to come up with some happy accidents, use something generative, possibly connect it to your daw or modular rig or other external synths, and enjoy the sequences it’s generating with your guidance, then do! 
They aren’t really comparable.
3 Likes
I’m going to say that it’s not, if you like having absolute control over what is being sequenced. If you want to give up some of that control in favor of happy accidents, the T-1 could be awesome. I personally do not work that way, and consequently hated the T-1.
5 Likes
Pretty 
I know a lot (most?) of people approach the T-1 as a “happy accidents machine” so this is a completely valid way to describe it (and hate it 
). But it’s worth pointing out that, if you don’t randomize parameters, the machine is completely deterministic and still quite deep. I come to it with an idea in mind and then execute that idea with absolute control, for example, and never touch random.
It’d be a little like saying the 
sequencer doesn’t give you control because it has trig probability. Or that the A4, DN, etc. don’t let you control patches because you can randomize them with [PARAMETER] + [YES]. That’s a fun, maybe even practical way to start out, mess around, or see what’s possible. But you can also ignore all that and bind it to your will!
I don’t think there’s a lot of overlap between the two sequencers, so I don’t think it’s silly or overkill. It’d expand your tools, not replace or double them up.
“Worth” is such a tricky thing! And like you say, the T-1 is not cheep. Ultimately, are you running into limitations or frustrations with the DT? If not, I’d say take the win! You have a powerful sequencer that’s doing what you need it to do. Great job!
If, on the other hand, you’re finding it tedious to do build up polymetric patterns, or take up too many tracks to do so, or want to combine these patterns with an arp in a way the DT doesn’t allow, or wish you could randomize parameters the DT doesn’t like, or… anything really, then it’s time to start looking for additional tools. And the T-1 is a great one.
But regardless, start with the need, not the tool. It’s really easy to see a new thing and then think your music or your process is missing something because you don’t have it. That’s backwards. These are all tools in service of our music.
7 Likes
I agree “worth” is very subjective.
“If, on the other hand, you’re finding it tedious to do build up polymetric patterns, or take up too many tracks to do so, or want to combine these patterns with an arp in a way the DT doesn’t allow, or wish you could randomize parameters the DT doesn’t like, or… anything really, then it’s time to start looking for additional tools. And the T-1 is a great one.”
^ This made it sound very enticing.
If I do end up suffering from sequencer tedium and find myself needing a “happy accident machine” I’ll know where to look
1 Like