3x3 mode

Will a 3x3 mode being added in future?

4 Likes

I personally think it should have always had 3x3 mode and not the 2x2. The 2x2 mode just doesn’t make sense to me and waste of space. I’ll take 3x3 for simplicity but just enough to get the job done and 6x6 for the more advanced stuff.

4 Likes

The physical buttons are what defines the difference between the modes, not really the track count.

2x2 works because the three buttons can be next part, record track 1, record track 2. Once you go past that there’s no difference between 3, 4 or 6 tracks, the buttons would literally have the same operation but there would just be an arbitrary artificial limit imposed on max tracks/parts.

So then you might argue for 2x3 instead and add a part… But for me, most songs are verse, chorus and maybe a bridge. If there is a bridge it’s only played once so doesn’t need a loop. That means 2x2 is the right choice for simple mode. Anything more might as well be the technical limits since they’re the same operationally.

Would be useful even if only accessible by midi.

I’d give up easy access to stop/start button in 3x3 mode to have this built in.

Agree… Completely programmable button function via MIDI and a full MIDI implementation would change things. But as a default, for the out-of-box, standalone functionality as of now, I think singular chose correctly.

I don’t know if this was anyone else’s experience, but talking just about the physical switch patterns between both modes, I pretty much stopped using 2x2 even if the song only needed 2x2. Once the muscle memory sets in, it was best to just adopt the 6x6 switch patterns and stick with that. And then if I needed more on the fly that I didn’t expect from the start, it’s available. It’s the changing of my own process between the 2 patterns that’s the problem, not the machine’s fault.

For this feature request, it could be interesting to let the user decide what the track limit and part limit are for each song (up to 6x6), and if it’s 2xN, give them the option to choose the 2x2 physical switch pattern. That way they could decide if having something like 2x6 (6x2?) would still maintain the 2x2 physical switch pattern. I’m all for coming up with dynamic choices rather than hard-coding 2x2, 3x3, etc. modes.

4 Likes

I kind of wish I had done that. But early on I was struggling with all the new tap dancing I needed to learn and used the 2x2 mode. Fortunately it’s all I need, but you’re absolutely right about muscle memory because now I find 6x6 mode hard to get into.

2 Likes

I am hoping the midi support for 6x6 is good enough to work like 2x2 as long as I have enough buttons on my midi controller.

4 Likes

you could make a fs7 switch operate one of the buttons, it is possible as you can do that on the rc500 boss looper

I’m the same as you. I liked the 2x2 until I discovered the benefits of 6x6, especially with the way I use the looper. I always run in 6x6 now.

Agreed :+1:

Even just 3 by 1 mode and ability to assign switches to functions like rc500

1 Like

For me an RPM 4x4 mode using midi commands would be perfect!
Like this with the MM, I could attribute in a single page:

  • 4 independent tracks,
  • 1 button to undo selected track
  • and a button to leave this page.