‘Next part selected’ needs only one initialisation statement like ‘C=1;’ instead of ‘C=0;’ in the code, so programming time would be like 1 minute. Max number of parts seems similarly changing a constant to a variable. It looks like political reasons push this implementation to the far future not technical difficulties.
Here is what I think: Big companies like Roland can afford to mutilate some of their products in order to protect the more expensive ones, but smaller companies can not afford to hold back strong sides of their products for too long.
1 Like
Thank you for listening to user suggestions. It was an unpleasant surprise for me that Eros does not follow BeatBuddy in 6x6 mode. Looking forward to the update!
1 Like
Hello .
Here is a suggestion, let me know what you think.
Why not remove the 2 x 2 mode and leave only the 6 x 6 mode with the possibility of choosing the number of tracks and parts before starting to record and also keep, as for the 2 x 2 mode, the change of parts with the transitions of the BEATBUDDY? Everything would be much easier to use.
Thank you.
2 Likes
Oh I get what you mean. Yes that seems like a good idea. I suppose in 6*6 mode you could just record what you need anyway.
Might be confusing if the operation of the device footswitches changes dramatically when you have more than 2 track or 2 parts.
I do see the benefit of having a simple UI with 2 tracks (mapped to two buttons) but more than 2 parts. Might be a good idea if the buttons are directly mapped to the tracks when you have two (or less) tracks in a part. But then the UI gets a little more complicated once you go above two tracks. Some issues to work out (and I doubt SS would ever go for it).
I do like the idea of being able to chose the number of parts and tracks (for other reasons). There is a feature request for this somewhere…
It’s a nice wish, but I think until/unless 6x6 mode is as functionally easy as 2x2, it’s a reasonable compromise.
Personally, in my use I rarely feel limited by 2x2 mode, and 6x6 hasn’t had much use. Since it requires more tap dancing to use 6x6, I appreciate that they added 2x2 mode.
1 Like
Hey there,
We do not plan on going this route, but thank you for the feedback.
The thing that we are most likely going to look at, if we do, Is the concept of setting how many parts or possibly how many tracks are in a song. The problem here is the changing behavior, and what people expect to be able to do in each track set-up. The amount of possibilities makes this a rabbit hole for us, and so it’s something we are willing to explore, but later on as a future feature.
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 
Hello
Could be fine to have a 3x3 and 4x4
The 2x2 is very good to jam
With a 4x4 you can begin to make an intro, verse, chorus, bridge in a more easy way than the 6x6
in my opinion !
Tx
1 Like
Hi, there are similar request, in short, we don’t plan on doing this any time soon, it is not currently a priority.
Thank you for the feedback!