the return of the step sequencer

[kodama]

A nice feature would be a pattern bank with features like Microtonic's

(See # pad on bottom left)

[Frank123]

For a suggestion, why not design specs for two different hardware units? The all-out pricey one with all options you could dream of and has a price to reflect it. Then strip down that unit to build a cheap budget version with more limited functionality but a more mainstream price? I would imagine a lot of the work you do can be transfered between the two.

Spuddle,

thanks for bombing me with information I really love to read all that stuff.

You are right.
My plan is to collect all information about what people would call the perfect sequencer. See also the old thread (sorry its in german)in moogulators forum:
http://www.sequencer.de/synthesizer/vie ... er&start=0
Then I want to add my intelligent music algorithms and arppegios.

While the design of a sequencer for Live and a sequencer for Studio is different and sometimes contrary they sure should have a common base in relation to the improvisational tools.

I will build the small one first (about 300 Euros), thinking about a tiny desktop box with a minimum of controls but alot of brain inside.

Then people will be happy with the price but will complain about the sparse user interface.

Then comes the big expensive one which no one can afford...
Frank

[Frank123]

A nice feature would be a pattern bank with features like Microtonic's

Can you please explain abit more?
Do you mean just buttons to call the next pattern to play?

[spuddle]

For a suggestion, why not design specs for two different hardware units? The all-out pricey one with all options you could dream of and has a price to reflect it. Then strip down that unit to build a cheap budget version with more limited functionality but a more mainstream price? I would imagine a lot of the work you do can be transfered between the two.

Spuddle,

thanks for bombing me with information I really love to read all that stuff.

You are right.
My plan is to collect all information about what people would call the perfect sequencer. See also the old thread in moogulators forum:
http://www.sequencer.de/synthesizer/vie ... er&start=0
Then I want to add my intelligent music algorithms and arppegios.

While the design of a sequencer for Live and a sequencer for Studio is different and sometimes contrary they sure should have a common base in relation to the improvisational tools.

I will build the small one first (about 300 Euros), thinking about a tiny desktop box with a minimum of controls but alot of brain inside.

Then people will be happy with the price but will complain about the sparse user interface.

Then comes the big expensive one which no one can afford...
Frank

Can't wait! If you seriously do this, I'll be interested in that cheap one to get going with and then... ?

It's great that you like to listen to suggestions from your users. So a big plus there.

Sorry I haven't time to read on the link you gave me but will you be allowing your sequencer to output MIDI as well? Over USB?? That would be nuts, small compact USB-powered step sequencer for the road.


---

As for the microtonic banks. The set-up allows you to program 8 simulatenous beats over 16 steps and they are on pattern "A", you can then copy this rhythm onto B or start a new one from scratch. You can chain A, to B, to C and so on to L to increase the length of the sequence. There is also a "randomize" option for creating new rhythms and patches.

If you've not used microtonic before, go download the demo, it's one of the best software drum machines out there as far as usability and sound go. You'll find a lot to be inspired by from it.

[Frank123]

Sorry I haven't time to read on the link you gave me but will you be allowing your sequencer to output MIDI as well? Over USB?? That would be nuts, small compact USB-powered step sequencer for the road...

I assume you mean to communicate with the computer just over usb without any
Midi-Plugs? Yes, I thought about those possibilities, especially concerning extended editing with the help of an additional software. In the area of pattern browsing and organizing a computer with a TFT could be of great help.
But also no, I think this is not doable for the inexpensive 300 Euro unit. But I'm really checking this again, like that idea.

[HHaynes]

On the "high end" Here's a bit about the Arturia Origin sequencer (and arpeggiator). The videos don't go much into the "performance mode" options, but they seem to be on the right track.

[Frank123]

I want something exactly like the Serge TKB, only affordable to mere mortals.

http://www.serge-fans.com/wiz_seq.htm

Mmmh, I haven't yet understood what special features this TKB thing has. 4 rows but 5 outputs? What exactly happens when I touch one of those capacitive keys?

[Frank123]

On the "high end" Here's a bit about the Arturia Origin sequencer (and arpeggiator). The videos don't go much into the "performance mode" options, but they seem to be on the right track.

Looking at the videos I find those sequencer and arpeggiator units pretty basic. The routing of the layers is nicely done, taking advantage of the built-in sound processor. But so far - nothing exciting new.

[deastman]

I want something exactly like the Serge TKB, only affordable to mere mortals.

http://www.serge-fans.com/wiz_seq.htm

Mmmh, I haven't yet understood what special features this TKB thing has. 4 rows but 5 outputs? What exactly happens when I touch one of those capacitive keys?

The TKB is just a very open, flexible design that doesn't limit how you can use it.

It can be configured so pressing one of the keys jumps to the associated sequence step, and then the sequence either starts running from there, or holds on that step. So you could use it to either jump around a sequence, play notes that you designate with the sequence step, or whatever else you can think of. The capacitive keys also output a pressure CV, and there is another "note" CV which is equal-tempered across all the keys.

Other notable features: Each sequencer step has its own trigger output. The rows can be chained so you can have a 64 step sequence. You have CV random access to the steps, as well as playback direction. Also important, the TKB will clock quite comfortably up to high audio rates, so it can be used as an oscillator.

[Frank123]

Thank you, deastman, for the explanation. I didn't know that those capacitive keys on the Serge have pressure capabilities.

How do you use the 4 layers on your machine, what targets are your preferences?

[deastman]

Thank you, deastman, for the explanation. I didn't know that those capacitive keys on the Serge have pressure capabilities.

How do you use the 4 layers on your machine, what targets are your preferences?

Well, I don't have a Serge, hence my comment about wanting something affordable to mere mortals. Serge modulars are EXTREMELY well built, with a lot of milspec components, but they are also outrageously expensive. My friend has one, and I've been jealous for years!

No, I just have a Doepfer system. Doepfer has been talking about building their own TKB clone for close to two years now, but nothing has been released, and the designs keep changing. I have two A-155 sequencers (http://www.doepfer.de/a155.htm) and an A-154 sequencer controller (http://www.doepfer.de/a154.htm), which, along with some mults and switches, gives me a lot of versatility. On the other hand, it can be extremely cumbersome to do basic things like sequencing 16 steps of all the rows.

I find it very difficult to say what my "preferred targets" are. Obviously, you could use it for the typical oscillator pitch CV/filter cutoff CV/VCA envelope trigger combination. I do that sometimes. However, I use my modular more for sonic experimentation, so anything that can be gate/trigger/CV controlled is fair game for the sequencer. I do also use it as an oscillator sometimes, although the embedded microcontroller only clocks up into the low-mid audio range before locking up. The A-155 also has one notable feature not often found, even on the TKB: The row of external CV/audio input jacks found along the bottom of the module. You can (for example) feed different waveforms into each of those inputs, and the A-155 will step through the inputs, effectively becoming an audio wavesequencer.

In general, its best to look at a modular step sequencer as one device with several different applications: a conventional musical note sequencer, a complex oscillator, a multistage envelope, and a random access, multi-dimensional data lookup table.

[Frank123]

...
In general, its best to look at a modular step sequencer as one device with several different applications: a conventional musical note sequencer, a complex oscillator, a multistage envelope, and a random access, multi-dimensional data lookup table.

That's a nice definition.

Currently I'm reading through the Zyklus manuals/specs and I'm wondering how would a digital step sequencer look today.

Step means: I want the direct access of notes, the pattern right before me, a visible and tactile feedback.

Digital means: Using the endless possibilities of digital storage and microprocessing. You can incorporate algorithms into the machine which would not be possible with a conventional design.

Think about the movement. With traditional machines you mostly have up/down combinations, pendulum and the like.
What about having extended movements like 2 up->1 down

Example:
Scale forced to C-major.
c-e-d-f-e-g-f-a-g-b-a-c

Play a little phrase on the keyboard and the machine stores the relative movement (e.g. how much we go up or down) and transforms this
contour onto another scale.

So, all you sequencer guys, what do you dream about to have in a next generation sequencer?:)

[deastman]

Think about the movement. With traditional machines you mostly have up/down combinations, pendulum and the like.
What about having extended movements like 2 up->1 down

Example:
Scale forced to C-major.
c-e-d-f-e-g-f-a-g-b-a-c

Play a little phrase on the keyboard and the machine stores the relative movement (e.g. how much we go up or down) and transforms this
contour onto another scale.

So, all you sequencer guys, what do you dream about to have in a next generation sequencer?:)

With an open sequencer architecture, these kinds of things can be accomplished by using multiple sequencers together (hence my two A-155 modules):
Sequencer #1 is loaded with the C-major scale. Sequencer #2 controls which step to address in Sequencer #1. By merging Sequencer #2 output with the output of a keyboard CV, synchronized envelope or LFO, you can get a pattern which repeats with a variable offset.

With this in mind, a unique feature would be to have a sequencer with multiple rows, but have the ability to address the step# of each row independently. In this way, the multiple rows would become totally independent sequencers. Or alternatively, you could synchronize them in the traditional way.

[Frank123]

With an open sequencer architecture, these kinds of things can be accomplished by using multiple sequencers together (hence my two A-155 modules):
Sequencer #1 is loaded with the C-major scale. Sequencer #2 controls which step to address in Sequencer #1. By merging Sequencer #2 output with the output of a keyboard CV, synchronized envelope or LFO, you can get a pattern which repeats with a variable offset.

Of course, if you go modular all this is possible after a little patching. But it needs alot of experience and takes some time to go from one setting to the other.
With a modern digital step sequencer it should be possible to perform
on different arpeggios and on-the-fly recorded motives.

With this in mind, a unique feature would be to have a sequencer with multiple rows, but have the ability to address the step# of each row independently. In this way, the multiple rows would become totally independent sequencers. Or alternatively, you could synchronize them in the traditional way.

Yes that would be nice to have. The question is: What is in a column? what is in a row? I think most classic sequencers can play all columns (steps) together or the rows one after another which makes the pattern longer, but reduces the count of layers.

In a digital step machine you can have arbitrary pattern lengths and any count of layers. The only problem is to map the control interface with its limited count of controls to the endless count of targets.


What would people prefer?
Rotary Encoders for the classic pot look and feel or a big panel of switches like the Doepfer Schaltwerk or the Octopus?

[deastman]

What would people prefer?
Rotary Encoders for the classic pot look and feel or a big panel of switches like the Doepfer Schaltwerk or the Octopus?

I think people would prefer to have both! Knobby sequencers are more popular with the modular crowd today than ever, but we also have the Monome. I think it boils down more to:

1)What kind of sequencer would YOU like to build?
2)How will it be different/better than what is already available?