Advanced Sequencers

[3phase]

As the Seq column in the editor shows...there is space for development...
My aproaches to build sequencers i like end often in a situation with 50% dsp load and 100% memory load. This shows that more expensiv and featured sequencer modules would actually free resources.

No 1 on my list is a record able gate time sequencer...
actually i would like to see the record feature also on the control sequencer.

advanced trigger modes with selectable start position.
Modulateable end position...is the end point before the start point the Seq runs backward.

A multipattern sequencer....
Aso

The nice looper patches of Palle Pahlsted could become a module ...one that keeps the recording in ideal....

And and and....

But especially enhancing the realtime recording ability of sequences is a feature a performance instrument like the G2 would benefit from.

Sven

[W.T.]

good idea but i am very spoiled with my reaktor package i must say
so i would like to see more interested seq. and rec . buttons.
an advanced trigger modes with selectable start position would be the bomb.

[jamos]

I'd like to see some similar enhancements to sequencer - maybe either enhancements to the existing, or new sequencer modules altogether. In any case, what I'd like to see:

- Multi-pattern sequencers
- Direction control
- Skip stage
- Go To stage
- Additional editing operations such as ganged editing, global transpose, invert, reverse, shift, etc.
- Rhythm recording

[mosc]

This is an area I'm in very strong agreement with. I think Jamo's comments are very well put. They are also specific, so someone who actually writes the software would understand the post. Let's try to keep these which lists very specific.

So, voting on this post is already a bit vague becasue of so many things being mentioned. I'm going to withhold my vote until we get better clarification.

3phase, what do you mean by a recordabale gate time sequencer?

W. T., can you be specific and describe what advanced trigger modes you mean?

I'm just trying to make sure our communications are clear and easilly understood by the developers should they read this.

[3phase]

uhhh the Mosc Bot... *hiding*

I didnt wanted to be too specific because i generally wanted a vote for improoved sequencers. Whatever the improvement will be.

But to clarifi my package of seq wishes...

A recordable gate time sequencer stores start and legth of a note.
You can achieve gate time sequencing with the existing modules but it is some hazzle involved and you only can program them by the knobs or use the note seq for gatetimes what is not so easy to edit by the knobs than. I posted a try for a 101 sequencer a while ago on the list where the note seq is used to generate gate times and this was not even a realtime recorder. To patch such a thing is realy expensiv and therefore an area where dedicated modules would enhance the G2.
The patches of Palle Pahlsted ( forgive when i misswrite the name), on the clavia side (the loopers) are a good way to achieve some gate time seq in realtime... but not edit or storeable. I think that is an interesting area for a performance instrument..

The advanced triggermodes are mainly something as startpoint modulation. what actually means jumping at reset trigger to an specific step. Therfore i see this as an triggermode.
But it also can be a keyboard button for reset or transpose.

Multipatternseq was asked in another post allready...this would be in general resource saving and also helps with the goal to change sequences within one variation without loosing the actual sound settings during a performance. Creating Multipattern sequencing within a patch is defenetly memory consuming, especially when you like to have 2 or 4 bar patterns.
But such a thing is probably more difficult to achieve than the other points and therfore should be left out of this poll.
I just mentioned it

So as i said... see this poll more like the general wish for development on the seq side. Whatever this will be i will enjoy it.

I have the option in the poll where people can vote for seq improvments even when they disagree with my wishes...

I guess there are quite a few users that dont work with the internal sequencers but i do quite a lot. And i guess i am not the only one.

[mosc]

Thanks, 3phase.

Would you say that Jamos' ideas above summarize your thought pretty well?

[3phase]

[Sander_k]

I would be happy with just one improvement, the possibility to shift up your pattern back and forth.. i hate to make multiple sequences just for the shifts.

[mosc]

You might want to check this patch by Rob that does back and forth. It will get you though the night until Clavia makes improvements.

http://electro-music.com/forum/topic-1754.html

[Kassen]

[mosc]

True, Kassen, with the G2 you can DIY almost any sequencer, but not very easilly. As a DIY kit, the G2 is pretty incomplete. I've said many times the kit needs a binary up/down counter. Look at the pinout for the ancient 741292. The borrow and carry outputs make it easy to do chaining.

This device could be used for some very sophisticated sequencers. The G2's binary counter is just a toy. Think what we could do with a 74192, Add a D/A module and a control seq and you've got it. Back/Forth, jumping chaining. Instead of using sequencers, you could use multiplexers, then you've really got something special.

[Sander_k]

[ian-s]

This patch, although not exactly what Kassen described, illustrates his theory. Use the knob to rotate the pattern. You can invert the LFOB output to run backwards.
If you would like sub beat shifts, remove the quantizer.

---

rotatePat.pch2
Description:	rotating pattern shift	Download
Filename:	rotatePat.pch2
Filesize:	2.19 KB
Downloaded:	1633 Time(s)

---

[blue hell]

This patch is along the lines described by Kassen.

To get rid of automation delete the red modules or don't load the patch into slot B.

Jan.

---

seq_1.pch2
Description:	Yet another sequencer with shift and reverse.	Download
Filename:	seq_1.pch2
Filesize:	2.81 KB
Downloaded:	2293 Time(s)

---

[Kassen]

[blue hell]

[Kassen]

Modulus functions kept bouncing around in the back of my mind for a long time untill I set some recursion loose on it. They are extremely usefull for all sorts of thing. Mod12 and a lookup table will give you alternative tunings and saw waves have the delightfull property that pulling them through a mod will keep them saw shaped, resulting in instant octave shifters for values that are factors of the saw´s amplitude (and nice stuff for other factors too).

Lots of fun can be had if it weren´t for how much such a simple thing costs in zero page memory.

While I´m at it; I would also realy like a square root function and a 1/n one. I´ve been trying to build my own based on iterative algorithems but this makes one go in full blown mad-scientist mode, muttering formulae and waving around scraps of paper which isn´t realy ask rock&roll as you´d like things to be.

[Kassen]

Aplogies for breaking netiquette here, but I´d like to remark that since we have the lookup table oscilators and especially the multiplexers advanced sequencers pritty much mean more math and logic.

As I remarked before; math in digital modular synthesis is easy, non-aliassing math is realy hard. I would -for this reason- like to see the temprary return of pure control signal modifiers to bridge the gap untill somebody more clever then me figures out a efficient sollution. Often math doesn´t sound all that good when aplied to audio but it´s vitally important to advanced control structures, particularly in how interface relates to the parameters of the sound.

I think this is a better solution then "real" new sequencers since this would also be aplicable to the multiplexers. I firmly believe it´s a good idea to seperate the sequencer from the data that´s in it. Sequencers based on s&h modules are inherently writable from any source within the patch and they are writable in a way that´s not dependant on the location of the sequencer which I think is a very good thing, both for algorithmic composition and straightforward techno stuff.

[mosc]

[Kassen]

Yes, well, you agree and we probalby have Jan, Rob and few more ner^h^h^h intelectuals in our corner but actually doing this as you see fit required lots of thinking and either coding or soldering before the G2 and with the G2 it´s still quite expensive. I brought one of those "algorithmic composition" tools to it´s knees with a implementiation that was still fairly basic. The windows version of Super colider still lacks midi-out, I was kinda hoping to port my own sequencer idea to that.

I wish this would become accepted dogma in electronic music.

[blue hell]

[Kassen]

Thanks, Jan, I *did* give this matter a lot of thought lately...

My thoughts grew from a desire to link synthesis to instrument playing and sequencing to techniques from clasical music, hoping for a more "direct" feel to my music. The little paradox is that to get from the standard stuff to the intuitive directness I want it seems nesicary to cross a little forest of math. A fairly thorny one, unfortunately, as time is a factor in all of this.

Looking at some controlls as a 2d or even 3d space for example creates a imediate and urgent need for a square root function. 2d spaces are clearly a nice way of relating to parameters even for lay persons (chaospad, anyone?) and distances in them are also very intuitive but making a square root operator to do some highschool level math is not so easy, in fact I found it quite hard so far. Instead of being difficult -something I occasionally get acused of- My plan here is to make things a lot easier in the end.

I have some hope that certain individuals will forward some of my thoughts to a certain company.

[diskonext]

[Kassen]

Be good now

So, you into breakcore and math too? We shall need to talk thursday. I´m 2M and have a large afro; it´s utterly impossible to miss me. No excuses this time :¬)

To get back on some semblance of the topic; it´s not that weird that it´s missing. It´s both hard to implement at audio rate without aliassing and it may not be clear that it´s uses outweigh how confusing it can be at first to synth designers. After all; many products are advertised as having "no hard math" for the poor musicians to get confused about.....

Still i think it´d be worthwhile. Particularly the engine has to compete with the likes of SC, PD, Reactor, MAX/MSP and so on and so forth. No math is big problem in that field even if you do have a interface that´s still usable after a drink or two.

[diskonext]