Would love to see a Euclidean Rhyhtm mode in the Rytm. Anybody else agree? Could be really easy to implement too. My idea: In the trig conditions screen you would select a number for how many hits you want. total step length would be total number of steps that pad is set to like it is currently. And it would then automatically space the hits based on the Euclidean algorithm
6 Likes
If you have an iPad the (essential) Collider app has the option.
1 Like
There’s also Void’s Strom app which, I believe, offers it.
mac only . but either way wouldnt it be nice if it was native?
1 Like
Yes, of course. No question.
AFAIK there is already everything implemented.
We can set different pattern to individual length and we can distribute the beats according to the Euclidean rules. There is no difficult maths or special utility required to set it up quickly.
http://www.iniitu.net/Euclidian_Erdös_Deep_Aksak_rhythms.html
Just two examples to get you started immediately 
3 Likes
We got it!
I don’t understand how pulse 1 and 2 can be assigned to different tones. Why else would you need the binary operators if you can’t?
6 Likes
They can’t, the two pulse seed patterns are concurrent, the binary operator determines the outcome … per track … there will be pulses removed in some operations
having complex possibilities with two pulses opens up possible variations that one pulse could never achieve … per each track - every track can be different
2 Likes
My calibration finished and I get it now that I’ve played with it. The confusing operator was the last one, “sub”. It must be short for “subtract” because it will play all PL1 where there is NOT a PL2.
The 2 generators with the operators and rotations is so powerful!
2 Likes
I want this on my Digitone and Model:Cycles.
7 Likes
I’m not sure if this is the best thread to ask this in, but here goes.
I feel like I understand euclidean sequencing. What I’m not clear on is the benefit of using a sequencer like the new 1.70 function on the Rytm, or the Torso T-1, etc. Can’t you create the same kinds of patterns using traditional sequencers, or in a DAW or using the standard Elektron sequencer? Someone school me!
1 Like
Having the calculation built in allows rapid tweaking. If you’re just going to set and forget, then, yes, you can build the pattern in the usual kind of sequencer.
4 Likes
for people like me who don’t know what I’m doing, it’s fun to have it spit out random sequences that aren’t my stale usual go-to’s with the twist of a few knobs. get some inspiration, copy to pattern and edit.
4 Likes
my main confusion with it is that after one or two bars, the boolean operator turns back to OP. every single time. not sure if I’m doing something wrong or have to lock it or change the pattern/track length or what the deal is. maybe I’m thinking that it should leave it on the boolean operator you want when really you can’t…? which… well that’s stupid if that’s the case.
you can even see it happen in the explainer video:
P.S. having learned boolean operations decades ago, and heard many professors and engineers say them over the years… the way he says the operators and even the word “boo-LEE-an” makes me cringe 
“OP” stands for “Operator” and is the parameter’s label. If you change any parameter, you will see that they usually show the numerical value instead of the label for a short time. The same thing is happening on the operator parameter, but instead of a numerical value it writes the boolean’s name (OR, XOR, AND, SUB). When the label “OP” reappears, you are still on the boolean operator you have selected.
9 Likes
ah, gotcha. that’s confusing in the context of Elektron user interfaces that otherwise leave things as they are set. why is there just a generic OP for “operator” left when one selects an operator?
I mean by that logic, one could just re-label all the numeric values on all the parameters to say “VAL” right?
I don’t think so. You can see values when holding the corresponding menu button pressed iirc. And when turning a knob. But otherwise the name of the parameter is displayed rather than the value.
1 Like
No, that’s not how it works. If you turn TUNE, the word TUNE will disappear from under the knob to show the numerical value instead of it. Then TUNE will reappear. TUNE is the name of the parameter.
The same thing is happening with the OP parameter. When you turn it, “OP” disappears and you see the value (expressed as boolean names instead of numbers). Then OP reappears. OP is the name of the parameter.
5 Likes
it’s pretty simple: when I change the parameter, it changes the name and the graphic of the logical operator. then I release it and it goes back to “OP” default. why? to me, that says “we released the value you set.”
it sounds like what you’re saying is you can’t display both the parameter name and the value it’s set to within the space you have. which… I get it. but this display is way less intuitive to me. I’m just assuming the value I’ve set has been lost while I’m listening for what has changed (within a potentially chaotic situation). I think “well what if I used OR or XOR instead…? oh wait, I have no idea what operator I used last time because the value is now the label and I’m unsure of what I did or what I like here…”
the OP symbol remains no?