glitch sampler with super reverb
Aux samples
60 turns on a slicer
83 turns on a random player
65-68ish reverse/randomize arrays

Go easy on the reverb!

4638 PM
Chat about this patch on Discord! Download (408)
1 Star 6
11 comments on “secondwoman
  1. jooga1972 on said:

    Another nice piece of glitchy-sweetness! And the reverb is DEEP, or, as promised, it is super, Indeed it is. :)

  2. lee on said:

    Really like this, lovely sound, although I’ve had issues adjusting the length of slices. It also doesn’t seem to support creating replacing the sample without reloading the patch? Some more instructions would be very welcome :)

    But overall, absolutely love the sound and have already used it on a track :)

  3. shreeswifty on said:

    i am pretty sure just pressing 60/83 again should sample the incoming stream again
    I’ll double check it but that should give you new samples

  4. lee on said:

    Thanks so much again for your amazing work! I assume 60/83 are note numbers, not CC values?

    I really need to dive into PD and start taking a look.

  5. jooga1972 on said:

    Anyone noticed this patch has MIDI sync? Well, either it does or it’s my ears but the sample’s playback tempo follows the clock coming from the OP-1. I’m working on a track with 2ndwoman (note: I live with my 3rd wife :), will post a link when I’m done.

  6. shreeswifty on said:

    oh yes i forgot to mention that

  7. decibel001 on said:

    It seems that the initial wav sample is always present even after I have sampled new material, seems to creep back in to my slices. Is this how it is supposed operate?

  8. shreeswifty on said:

    No. The initial sample created the size of the buffer but pressing both sample areas should eventually overwrite the default. I am going to review a bunch of these and S/W as many are new so please give your feedback and experiment and I’ll gladly review and make updates!



  9. amaroferreiro on said:

    it´s amazing.
    it would be nice to have the chance to sample with the Foot Switch, i think it doesnt work, does it?


  10. guylevinberg on said:

    uhm not sure i understand what do you mean by 60 and 83

Leave a Reply