Home | ER-101 | ER-102 | ER-301 | Wiki | Contact

Hold mode/quantized commit functionality

#1

I’m looking for some clarification of the Hold mode and to understand why the ER-101 seems to be acting differently than I expect it to given what the manual says. It’s possible there’s a bug, but that feels unlikely given the maturity of the firmware…

My expectation:
When in Hold mode, I make the changes I want and press commit once. When I press commit once, the LED should blink until the end of the track, pattern, or step that I am focused on. For example, let’s say I have an 8 step pattern and the focus is on Step. I decide to change the note on step 7. When I press commit, let’s say I hit it on step 3, then LED should blink a couple of times until it hits the end of step 3. When it stops blinking, I am now on step 4, the change has been made, and I will hear the new note when I get back to step 7. The pattern never interrupts and always moves sequentially from 1 to 2, 2 to 3, etc., etc., ad infinitum. If I change a note value, the steps stay the course.

You can probably see where this is leading…

My reality:
When I edit step 7 and then hit the commit button while I am on step 3, at the end of step 3, I will return to step 1 as if I have hit the reset button. So the order of steps I will have heard is 1>2>3>1. When I get to step 7, I indeed heard the change that I have made, but I had to go back to the beginning to hear it. This also happens when the focus is on pattern as well. If I have 3 patterns and have changed something in pattern 3 and then press commit while on pattern 2, I will go back to pattern 1 like a reset.

Am I missing something?

While I’m at this, and what makes me think it’s a bug, is if I set a loop start point and then do a quantized commit, I always go back to pattern 1, step 1 even if the loop start is in pattern 15. When I finally get back to that point, the loop continues like it should, but I would assume that the intent of the quantized commit is that you stay within the loop that you define. (Though, this brings up that point that you could theoretically never hit end of a track, and therefore, never hear the edit… but, I digress.)

Finally, for reference, I got my ER-101 new on March 2 and it is connected to a 102. They’re running 2.09 and 2.19, respectively. Thanks!

1 Like

#2

This is the expected behavior. Committing new material is an all-or-nothing process. Since it is possible that the user deleted everything and created a whole new track (e.g. often happens when loading a new snapshot), the only consistent thing to do is to always assume that everything was replaced and start from the beginning.

I have thought of adding rules like:

“If no steps deleted or inserted than do not reset on a commit.”

but in the end I opted for the consistent behavior of always resetting. The ER-102 side-steps this issue by letting you assign a RESET TO step.

(By the way, thank you for taking the time to write the detailed description of your issue! I appreciate the additional time taken.)

1 Like

#3

Thank you for the explanation! That makes sense. So I guess my solution is to sit down and learn how to use the 102, which I still haven’t touched because I need to finish grad school. :sob:

You’re welcome for the description. I feel like it could have been summed up in “Is the commit function supposed to act like a reset?” Anyways, apparently I’m not willing to learn the 102, yet, but willing to write 500 word posts on forums lol

3 Likes

#4

:open_mouth: Is it possible to add this to feature requests?

My ER-101 just arrived few days ago. I’m absolutely blown away by its power and potential. I love MATH function and DURATION TRANSFER was one of the main reasons I decided to buy ER-101… but just as @chuckles1013 - I expected a little bit different functionality of HOLD mode/COMMIT button. I’ve read manual many times before buying the module, but I didn’t noticed that COMMIT acts also as a reset :frowning:

To be honest - after your explanation I see that current implementation is super obvious and I guess that in the long run it will encourage me to find my own way to (creatively) use HOLD mode!

But as for now - “no reset if…” option would be a life saver for me. I was really hoping that I will be able to apply small but precise (!) changes on the fly - especially when I’m in the middle of the loop… on pattern 15… between steps 7-14. Of course I want to stay in that loop after my one, small edit but EDIT mode isn’t really an option in this case.

Let’s say I’m in the middle of that loop and I want to change CV-A on step X from C2 to D4. Clock is fast and step durations are short - all I got is only one try and I don’t want to end up with something out of scale / wrong note (especially when I’m performing live!)… My best choice would be HOLD mode but I’ll “loose” my loop after hitting COMMIT.

Yes, ER-102 might be helpful in this situation… but I guess that using RESET TO for such simple (and temporary) action is an overkill + you need to remember to set new RESET TO whenever you change the loop.

(and on top of that - orders for ER-102 are closed and I don’t have extra space in my performance case anyway :frowning: )

Now imagine you got polyrhythmic loops on all four channels :slight_smile: You might want to use RESET from time to time but not necessary every time you’re using HOLD mode for small / precise adjustments.

PS. I absolutely adore ER-101. Thank you for your work!!!

0 Likes

#5

You’re gonna want to get the ER-102 when it’s available! :wink:

I’ve gotten to the point where I rely on the 102 to make 10-15 minute sequenced pieces because you can plan out your loops so that you always change on specific beats and make seamless transitions. It’s completely possible on the 101, but it takes a good amount of work to get similar results (a.k.a. I have huge respect for what Caterina Barbieri did on Patterns of Consciousness without a 102). One way that you could approach this is to loop something, then make a copy and paste it in the next pattern, make the changes you want and then change the loop points. You wouldn’t actually need the Hold function for that either. Again, a lot of work, but definitely doable. And totally worth understanding how the loop functions work. I really think it was worth learning the 101 over the course of months before diving into the 102. It makes you appreciate the 102 that much more.

0 Likes

#6

few more operations than simple switching to HOLD mode but yeah - that’s actually a really good idea! “manual HOLD mode” :slight_smile: Thanks!! ER-102 is definitely on my wishlist and I guess I will buy it as soon as I will master ER-101.

0 Likes

#7

I doubt I would implement the “only reset if steps deleted or inserted” because making reset behavior inconsistent in this way would be pretty confusing for users who don’t expect it. Another idea is to do a lazy commit where each track is committed separately at the moment it loops or repeats.

I’ll be considering it for the next ER-101 release but it will be a while especially since it is a substantial change to the current behavior and looks like it might affect other functionality.

Definitely not overkill :wink:

4 Likes

#8

Like this lazy commit idea. :slight_smile:

Weird, I have used hold mode a lot and never noticed it resets on commit, although tend to work on one track at a time and use the track focused commit.

1 Like