Dear friends, I’m packing most of my studio for a little while to limit myself to the minimum as possible. Analog RYTM+ANALOGFOUR+HEAT trio (mk1) would constitute my new portable setup.
I’m thinking about upgrading A4+Rytm to mk2, to get more outputs flexibility, and benefit from the RYTM mk2 sampling features. (and my mk1 are getting old…)
So here are my questions;
Is the RYTM mk2 contains all the features of the DIGITAKT?
What are the main differences in terms of processing and sequencing/sampling?
This have been covered multiple times, but the sample start/end (named differently on each machine) has a much finer resolution (rather than whole digits between 0 and 120, digitakt has resolution of 0.01). Also, you can set a loop point rather than looping the whole thing from start to finish. Also DT has 8 dedicated midi tracks that can have up to 4 notes per step. Other than that, tho, Rytm kicks DT’s ass in terms of the analog signal path and FX, plus all the analog synthesis engines ofc.
The sound on the digitakt is more of a high fi, crisper, cleaner digital sound than the analog rytm, which has a slightly darker more lofi sound due to the analog signal path, filters, distortion, compressor etc. They both sound great in their own ways, but just something to keep in mind. The sound differences have been discussed many times on these forums, and some people prefer the sound of one over the other.
Also the Rytm has 12 tracks with 8 voices at a time, that can be placed in choke groups, so one sound cuts off the other, while Digitakt has 8 tracks at the same time with no choke groups at all.
Most things have been said above, I’d like to add that another important thing the DT has over the AR is amp envelope retriggering. The AR’s amp envelope doesn’t retrigger if the previous sample on the track is still playing, a major flaw in my opinion.
As far as the sound goes (allthough this is completely subjective, and the words i’m using to describe sound make no sense at all): the DT indeed has a more hifi sheen, which sounds good, not sharp/sterile, but kind of airy, gluing everything together. The AR sounds more warm, but also more detailed in my opinion, kind of organic and spacious, whereas the DT sounds more compact and glued together.
It was covered few times but not necessary for the last OS. Thank you these precious infos. That means to me that Sampling capability on the RYTM mk2 are more like an ‘extra’ than complete sampling feature.
And what is the verdict?
I changed a few times between AR and DT, mostly because of the performance features, and the biggest difference between the 2 is the sound…
My verdict is that I will wait a bit. Since I disconnect and packed everything in my studio, and free 20 inputs on my soundcard I was tempted to get the RYTM+A4 mk2 to benefit from multi-outputs and sampling capability.
The aspect highlighted by @craig (increments resolution of 0 - 120 for RYTM, compared to 0.01 for Digitakt) make the upgrade to RYTM mk2 useless.
I will keep an eye open for a second hand Digitak.
On 95% of all sounds the 0-120 is enough in my opinion, especially if you use the envelope and microtiming.
The Mk2 is worth it over the Mk1 if you use samples a lot, for the exact reason of fine sample start and end. When you resample a sound you get super fine control over the waveform start and end point, like on the Octatrack.
Bit of a workaround but with how quick and easy it is to sample on the Rytm Ive been using it a lot on breaks.
Absolutely agree. I switched from DT to AR, and even when using a bunch of samples, never noticed any issues porting over my projects. It’s funny how differences in features on paper can seem bigger than they are in practice.
There is probably some granular synthesis workflow out there that would require DT’s precision, but I’ve never run into it.
Yes, just to clarify. There are 120 points you can select between the sample start and end, so if the sample is 1 second long you have a huge amount of control, even loops over 16-64 steps are fine for pulling out hits from a beat or whatever. Where it falls down is longer samples of a minute plus - then the precision can be problematic unless you’re like me and prefer stuff to be imperfect and jaunty
