Let‘s speculate about 5.2

[duanosforde]

Ai enabled song finisher tool for those of us who start but never finish songs. +1

[Zikax]

With version 5 they updated the Browser.
With version 5.1 they updated the Mixer.
With version 5.2 they update the Sequencer?

Really, that's what you remember from v5 and v5.1 ?

i remember everything since version 1.2.
I enjoyed the new mixer more than the filter and swipe plus even though nothing big has changed in the functions of the mixer

[BobDog]

I'm interested in why people want a sequencer thingy.

What is it that a sequencer device would add over say just using a clip?

[drsyncenstein]

I don't think he meant updating the stepsequencer.

I would really like to be able to switch the pianoroll in launcher clips to a step sequencer with a click of a button. So each clip could be a pianoroll\drumeditor or a stepsequencer.
But only if the stepsequencer has faders for pitch, note length, velocity and at least another assignable parameter. AND all those faders are available in a remote panel, so i can change them from a controller.
Now to the why; midiclips are fine for recording from a keyboard, or editing with a mouse.
Stepsequencers offer a different kind of creative proces, they are fun experimenting.
And the nice thing about hardware stepsequencers is that you are not tied to a mouse.
Bitwig can have the best of both.

If Bitwig never makes it this way i would not be disappointed too much.
But i seen no reason at all why nearly everything can be controlled from remote panels, except for the stepsequencers.
That IS painful.

[pdxindy]

I don't think he meant updating the stepsequencer.

I would really like to be able to switch the pianoroll in launcher clips to a step sequencer with a click of a button. So each clip could be a pianoroll\drumeditor or a stepsequencer.

That would be great... especially if it was as capable as the Logic Step Sequencer.

Ways that it differs from regular midi clips:

In Logic, you enable record and then open the GUI of a plugin, say Hive, click on Cutoff, Amp Env Decay and Filter Gain (or whatever) and those 3 are instantly lanes in the sequencer. Then with a swipe of the mouse, you can draw step automation. The automation lanes are visible right with the note lanes. You cannot do that in a regular clip.

The user can have as many or few lanes as they want. If you just want 3 note lanes (C3, D#3 and G3) and a couple automation lanes, it is easy.

Each lane can have its own number of steps and playback speed (cannot do that in a regular clip)

[BobDog]

Right I get it now, I was a bit confused!

[catzilla]

What is it that a sequencer device would add over say just using a clip?

Idk what people think of a sequencer, I think of it like something I make for myself in the Grid where it's easy to build polyrhythms/polymeters, to mess around with phases of individual sequencer lanes and to generate random patterns by a mouse click. I don't think piano roll is really capable of that.

And this is excatly why I bought the Polyend Play. Grid is powerful, but is a bit hard to use when you're im the middle of creative process with all its overblown UI where I can't even hide darn wires.

[xbitz]

^^^ + The sequencers use patterns, which are notably absent from Bitwig. Therefore, to introduce a change, you must modify every instance of a clip versus sequencers where this process is centralized. In such sequencers, a track only contains calls to the specific sequencer/pattern without holding the content itself.

btw. I've created a video about it with Reason, anno
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFWmvua39CI
can you see the track itself contains only references (and the base notes for transposing)

[foosnark]

With version 5 they updated the Browser.
With version 5.1 they updated the Mixer.
With version 5.2 they update the Sequencer?

Really, that's what you remember from v5 and v5.1 ?

5.1 for me was all about the extra filters and shapers, and voice stacking, I honestly forgot about the mixer

5.0 introduced the MSEGs (which so many people had been screaming for). But they did kind of overshadow it with the mess that was the new browser

[enCiphered]

With version 5 they updated the Browser.
With version 5.1 they updated the Mixer.
With version 5.2 they update the Sequencer?

Really, that's what you remember from v5 and v5.1 ?

5.1 for me was all about the extra filters and shapers, and voice stacking, I honestly forgot about the mixer

5.0 introduced the MSEGs (which so many people had been screaming for). But they did kind of overshadow it with the mess that was the new browser

Not at all. The new browser is not perfect yet, but it is miles better than the previous one. I find it a bit strange when people always talk everything down so excessively just because they are so stuck in their habits and workflow.

[Jac459]

With version 5 they updated the Browser.
With version 5.1 they updated the Mixer.
With version 5.2 they update the Sequencer?

Really, that's what you remember from v5 and v5.1 ?

5.1 for me was all about the extra filters and shapers, and voice stacking, I honestly forgot about the mixer

5.0 introduced the MSEGs (which so many people had been screaming for). But they did kind of overshadow it with the mess that was the new browser

For me the v5 is the change of scope of the modulations... Having modulations for a whole channel or the whole track. This open the road to so many things...
Oh and yes, curve and segment.... How was I doing before ? I can't remember.

[Jac459]

^^^ + The sequencers use patterns, which are notably absent from Bitwig. Therefore, to introduce a change, you must modify every instance of a clip versus sequencers where this process is centralized. In such sequencers, a track only contains calls to the specific sequencer/pattern without holding the content itself.

btw. I've created a video about it with Reason, anno
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFWmvua39CI
can you see the track itself contains only references (and the base notes for transposing)

Not many things are more beautiful to watch than the RRP inside Bitwig...

Why do you want to change that ?

[xbitz]

^^^ I found my picture in the Reason topic, so sequencers, sequencers, and in the tracks, only the sequencers' pattern selectors, that's how it goes. It actually replaces the patterns, but of course, there's no scale highlight, no ghost track, no multitrack editing, so it's nice but in moderation.

[foosnark]

Not at all. The new browser is not perfect yet, but it is miles better than the previous one. I find it a bit strange when people always talk everything down so excessively just because they are so stuck in their habits and workflow.

On the one hand: I did (after a couple of days) get the new browser to work for me a little better than the old one, for the most part.

On the other: it's more complex than it should have been, inconsistent, occasionally gets into weird states that I don't want it to be in, seems to be slower at searching, and the rollout was pretty messy.

I deleted some cache stuff and it sped up the search, but it slowed back down again pretty quickly.

[JHernandez]

Yes, the sequencer should have parameter sequencing and drum sequencing mode for sure. Lanes (nameable, color choice) should work individually and independently if the user chooses so. Parameters should be auto-fetched from the instrument. The drum sequencer (both actually) should get: steps, loop length, time/sig, gate, reverse, ping pong, chance, velocity, random, oh just throw the whole kitchen sink at it, and all parameters should be modulatable where possible. A groove pool of sorts will round it off nicely. The cherry on top.

It would be quite powerful integrated into Bitwig. At least in my mind it is. Groove city.