SEQUENCER

stiiif

Good afternoon Julian,

 

I have been following your project closely and already read the user manual a few times even though i don't own this jewel yet

In the future, is the sequencer going to grow to 64 steps for instance, instead of the current 16 steps?

Many thanks, I can't wait to feel it!

Stiiif

 

 

julian

If I understand it right - you can already chain up to 8 patterns.

dlyline

when you use substeps you already have 128 steps
=P~
also it is mighty solid with its timing.

stiiif

@Julian - you're definitely right but im used to electribe way of thing and i find it easier to program 64 steps rather than chaining pattern (even though i should make more use of chaining pattern) 

I'd love to be able to chain 8 patterns that has 64 steps each =P~

@dlyline - I might have misunderstood the sub step concept and tell me if im wrong: A sub step is shorter than 1 step. It allows to create some rolls and therefore isnt like a 128 steps sequencer.

Please tell me im wrong 

Masarin

+1 for 64 sequencer steps. Would make it easier to integrate with both my Elektrons (Octatrack and Analog 4). 

macMOE

Chaining patterns is way better than just 64 steps. Just read the section about chaining in the manual and you will see that it has lots of advantages. And its really easy to do.

stiiif

@macMOE: I totally agree, the pattern chaining setting looks awesome. Im not denying this. Still, we all have different ways to build and tweak patterns and I believe the power that could come out of merging the chaining possibilities plus 64 steps pattern would be just awesome!

64 steps have been quite a standard in drum machines. Since Julian built such a magnificient and complete tool, i was wondering if a sequencer with 64 steps would be part of a improvement.

Well, it looks like it won't happen, so ##ck it Ill buy it anyway

Masarin

Well, I guess here's a programmer or two who might try to implement it later on. ;-) No promises though.

julian

I have to check memory and optimize the pattern structure to be more efficient.
With all the sub steps a pattern is quite big. At the moment a pattern set of 8 patterns is about 50kbyte that have to be stored in memory. (8 patterns with 7 tracks à 128steps)

So I'm not sure if 4 times the data would still fit into the free memory.
Another point is loading time. I first want to try to speed up loading times before even considering this.
I already have an idea for faster pattern loading times, but it is a rather big rebuilt of the loading mechanism.

Another option would be a mode where you have less sub steps and more main steps, I am just wondering how one could fit this in the UI?!

dlyline

when talking of more steps you may as well use an external seq or whatever device you own that has those 64 steps (or pc/mac/atari/gameboy)
)

@julian without the substeps - shift+those buttons could select groups of 16 steps (?) with flashing led to know which group was selected.

i vote for faster loading over more steps anyway


:-\"

dlyline

@stiiif if you run a slower tempo (still with sync) or use clock dividers there is very little difference!

Masarin

Well... regarding of any effort from some people here to peculiarly trying to convince us to NOT wanting 64-steps I chose to ignore those efforts and still would like to have 64 steps IF and WHEN possible. 64 steps are simply more fun and convenient.  

:-??

stiiif

@dlyline: Personally i won't use an external sequencer even though it would work perfectly fine. Slowing down tempo is also a good trick but still feels too DIY/bending to me.

The more I think about it the more Im convinced about the power of chaining pattern vs 64 steps. Loading time is definitely a plus and the full visibility of the pattern steps (16 steps in this case) too.

If you have 64 steps, you would need to do an extra manipulation, press a button, in order to edit the 17 to 32 steps.

Still I can't get out of my head that more steps can only be positive to rythm creation!

@Julian: thanks for your technical point of view that makes so much sense.

loderbast

lets postpone this discussion until you guys have ur units built.
i think in general it depends on your way of doing thing / style of music / etc. if more steps per pattern or chaining works better. but i have the feeling once you try the LXR a lot of you will be satisfied as it is.
i am always craving for more features in diy gear, too. but wanting more steps has not occured to me with this one.
there is just so many ways of adding variation to patterns.
not only chaining and substeps. wait till you try step probability. also don't forget different tracks can have different length. make the hihats 10 steps / pattern and you basically get a 80 (5x16)step pattern for example.
combine all those + twiddle the morph knob = BAM!


 

dlyline

bam!

julian

dlyline

>-) very snappy response julian!

stiiif

shame I dont speak German!

@loderbast: you are right, maybe you could share a quick videos on this specific matter --> no need for 64 steps!

loderbast

loderbast

@stiiif:
unfortunately i have no camera here right now.
will see what i can do over the weekend.

macMOE

@Masarin

I was never trying to convince anybody to not want 64 steps.

All i was saying (although i did that poorly), is that its not that different. On any machine that uses 64-step-patterns you probably have to change the "page" to edit steps 17-64 (unless you have 64 buttons and LEDs).

Once you have 4 patterns chained on the lxr, it behaves pretty much like 64 steps. But you have more possibilities in varying certain parts of these patterns.