Sequencer with different lengths for gate/velocity/duration, etc

[droolmaster0]

I emphasize that I'm just slowly getting back into software again, and don't feel 'comfortable' with Numerology like I used to a few years ago yet.

so, I might be missing something.

But it seems to me like it would be way more efficient if there were a sequencer module where you could set different lengths for the note/gate/velocity - in fact all repeating patterns. Why have to create a bunch of other modules, and link them etc - I really like to set up these patterns to be of different lengths, and it just seems to me that it's somewhat of a pain to do compared to what it would be if one module could do it.

[lut lei]

You might have missed the mono/polynote-modules?

[droolmaster0]

You might have missed the mono/polynote-modules?

I've been using the mononote module - but it's my impression that the velocity pattern is the same # of steps as the note pattern, etc. I'm not seeing a way to change that. I'll have to check the manual, I guess, but I don't remember seeing that possibility in there.

Edit - just glanced through mononote docs, and there seems to be only an overall sequence length - how would you make the note pattern say, 16 steps, but the velocity pattern 9 steps?

[lut lei]

Sorry. I misunderstood.

Now building what you want to do with several modules linked together, may be cumbersome, but that is also what makes it so flexible. There is no mononote in Numerology 1, if I remember correctly, and I used to start each session by dropping in a couple of gates, a pitch and a velocity module.

Nowadays I probably more often start with a mononote. It is fast and convenient, but when my stacks evolve, I need to put in some CV-modules here and there. And that is the beauty of it. Since each of these modules have a lot of parameters, they can be used in so many ways. While a "macro"-module like the mononote, is very convenient, it is also limited to a certain degree, depending on what you want to do.

I sure wish there was a way to make your own "macro"-modules or group of modules, but I guess that is the way we should think of a stack. You could make yourself a custom set of stacks, and then import one when needed. It is not as fast as inserting a mononote, but it is in fact faster than building things from scratch each time.

And this is an area we will see vastly improved in Numerology 3.

[droolmaster0]

I understand the flexibility of building a patch with several modules. But that flexibility would still be there if there were, say, a mononote version that gave you independent sequence lengths for the individual components - you could still add modules for the additional functionality that you want.

Sorry. I misunderstood.

Now building what you want to do with several modules linked together, may be cumbersome, but that is also what makes it so flexible. There is no mononote in Numerology 1, if I remember correctly, and I used to start each session by dropping in a couple of gates, a pitch and a velocity module.

Nowadays I probably more often start with a mononote. It is fast and convenient, but when my stacks evolve, I need to put in some CV-modules here and there. And that is the beauty of it. Since each of these modules have a lot of parameters, they can be used in so many ways. While a "macro"-module like the mononote, is very convenient, it is also limited to a certain degree, depending on what you want to do.

I sure wish there was a way to make your own "macro"-modules or group of modules, but I guess that is the way we should think of a stack. You could make yourself a custom set of stacks, and then import one when needed. It is not as fast as inserting a mononote, but it is in fact faster than building things from scratch each time.

And this is an area we will see vastly improved in Numerology 3.

[lut lei]

After thinking about it, It could be a cool addition to the mononote module. Very handy when thinking about in the forthcoming mononoteAU perspective.

edit: Only after the last post I saw that it was in "Feature Requests"-forum. I shouldn´t discuss it as this :o

[droolmaster0]

After thinking about it, It could be a cool addition to the mononote module. Very handy when thinking about in the forthcoming mononoteAU perspective.

edit: Only after the last post I saw that it was in "Feature Requests"-forum. I shouldn´t discuss it as this :o


Well, in any case - a module like this would be hugely appreciated by me. I don't know if anyone else works this way.

[jim]

If you want to work with cv sequences of different lengths (or rates or directions, or ...), use the individual CV sequencing modules, that's why they are there. The MonoNote serves a different purpose altogether -- think 'phrase manipulation' instead of 'discrete sequencing'. Trying to add multiple lengths to the *thirteen* individual sequence vectors in the MonoNote would be a usability nightmare. As lut lei recommends, build yourself a library of template stacks and import them as you need them. The stack library in 3.0 is built exactly for that purpose.

Also, if all you need is to mix up the accent a bit, you can add a VelocitySeq ahead of a MonoNote, and route its output into the "velocity in" of the MonoNote.

Cheers,
Jim

[droolmaster0]

Right - I understand how that all works. I want this capability within one module. Yeah - one can make template stacks, but I still think it's easier and more efficient to have/view/edit one module that does all of this. I don't see a single reason why it's more functional to NEED multiple modules for this.

If you want to work with cv sequences of different lengths (or rates or directions, or ...), use the individual CV sequencing modules, that's why they are there. The MonoNote serves a different purpose altogether -- think 'phrase manipulation' instead of 'discrete sequencing'. Trying to add multiple lengths to the *thirteen* individual sequence vectors in the MonoNote would be a usability nightmare. As lut lei recommends, build yourself a library of template stacks and import them as you need them. The stack library in 3.0 is built exactly for that purpose.

Also, if all you need is to mix up the accent a bit, you can add a VelocitySeq ahead of a MonoNote, and route its output into the "velocity in" of the MonoNote.

Cheers,
Jim

[jim]

Right - I understand how that all works. I want this capability within one module. Yeah - one can make template stacks, but I still think it's easier and more efficient to have/view/edit one module that does all of this. I don't see a single reason why it's more functional to NEED multiple modules for this.

It basically boils down to two things:

1. There is no way to anticipate which combinations of features are going to be the most interesting or useful. What seems obvious and useful to you isn't necessary useful or interesting to someone else. For instance, I'm just as interested in having several pitch sequencers as in having pitch/gate sequences with different lengths.

2. Trying to pack too many features into a single module makes it difficult to design, confusing to use, more prone to bugs, etc. Some folks call it "feature-itis" -- when the addition of new things invariably makes it more difficult to perform common tasks.

The whole point of a modular system is to break functions down into manageable, easily learnable components, then allow users to put them together as they see fit -- that is a big part of how discovery happens, in the putting together.

In a purist approach, the big note sequencers would not exist at all, as they are invariably a compromise, an attempt to combine the most-used features into something that is easy to learn and quick to use. I find them extremely useful, and a nice way to work (as mentioned before, a 'phrase' based approach to sequencing), but they do not replace the component modules.

Jim

[droolmaster0]

Well, this is a feature request sub forum, so I figured that the request was appropriate.

I simply don't see how a module with notes, velocity, duration, and gate length each having separate sequence lengths is confusing, or represents too many features - the module could be simpler overall than some of the others.

But if you're not at all interested in doing this, then I guess I'll have to live with it. To me it seems like an absolute no brainer if you by default always set up parameters with different lengths to start.

[droolmaster0]

yet another thought - I don't see anything conceptually tying the sequence length of these other parameters to the note sequence length. therefore it is not somehow 'non-modular' to implement this, it is making a more general sequencing module with the same components.

[RHR]

Well, this is a feature request sub forum, so I figured that the request was appropriate.

I simply don't see how a module with notes, velocity, duration, and gate length each having separate sequence lengths is confusing, or represents too many features - the module could be simpler overall than some of the others.

But if you're not at all interested in doing this, then I guess I'll have to live with it. To me it seems like an absolute no brainer if you by default always set up parameters with different lengths to start.


Neither do I see such a request as confusing.

[Sjoerd]

With all due respect, while I sympathize and agree with the point to some extent (I can also think of many "modules" that I'd like to see :D), I also see the FR as failing to fully grasp the power of modularity. Which we probably all do to some extent, since the power of modularity is infinite (unfortunately, our system resources aren't... :p).

What would really be the way forward here imho is more user configurability of the GUI elements of Numerology, in a modular manner to stay true to Numerology's architectural paradigm. For example, first you would set up the type of thing you describe using multiple modules (as we already can), but then you would also be able to create some customized set of GUI controls that suit your particular needs, after which you could then hide the modules which you don't need for control via the GUI, so in the end, it would look like a single module to the user.

I'm almost sure Jim is already dreaming and planning this type of stuff, if not building and testing, but it will probably take quite a lot of work before we can use it. However, it will in the end also be way more useful than one-off specialized solutions.

[Per Boysen]

/// What would really be the way forward here imho is more user configurability of the GUI elements of Numerology, in a modular manner to stay true to Numerology's architectural paradigm. ///+1! Can't agree more with this attitude!

[rexlapin]

Also agreed! Having a powerful (and stable) underlying architecture with
a flexible user interface to facilitate all the various ways we might want
to interact with Numerology would be the best of both worlds. :-)
Cheers,
Scott

[RHR]

With all due respect, while I sympathize and agree with the point to some extent (I can also think of many "modules" that I'd like to see :D), I also see the FR as failing to fully grasp the power of modularity. Which we probably all do to some extent, since the power of modularity is infinite (unfortunately, our system resources aren't... :p).

What would really be the way forward here imho is more user configurability of the GUI elements of Numerology, in a modular manner to stay true to Numerology's architectural paradigm. For example, first you would set up the type of thing you describe using multiple modules (as we already can), but then you would also be able to create some customized set of GUI controls that suit your particular needs, after which you could then hide the modules which you don't need for control via the GUI, so in the end, it would look like a single module to the user.

I'm almost sure Jim is already dreaming and planning this type of stuff, if not building and testing, but it will probably take quite a lot of work before we can use it. However, it will in the end also be way more useful than one-off specialized solutions.


Maybe I have misunderstood the thread starter

Isnt he requesting a module that represents a more traditional linear style sequencer that makes it easy to input some chords or the basic stuff you would do in any Daw sequencer?

If that is so I personally dont see the problem with such a request.

In regards my perception of modular sequencing..hmmmm while way back in the 80's I didnt have modular synths I did have an entire set up of analog synths that required sequencing-syncing via CV gate, Dyn sync, FSK etc and quite often just hitting start on two machines at the same time and hoping for the best :D But they were perceived as more modern than modular synths because it made it easier to construct chords and songs on them. I have little experience with those modular synths from the late 70's but I know or did know a few people who were glad to see the back of them and welcomed the analog synths of the 80-'s that didnt require a quagmire of connections to play one chords for a specific length of time. But yeas of course there's a certain nostalgia for that style of programming but if you had the real setups that reqyuired a room full of these things it wasnt easy to get a song out of them. Ask Vince Clarke

Numerology imho doesn't just have try and re-create the past. Why do that when it can take from the past and also inject modern style sequencing. But this is Jims software and its up to him what he does with it and all the power to him.

From my selfish point of view Ive been using Daws now or ten years. While I like the modular style sequencer I also like what Ive been doing for the past ten years. It wouldnt be then end of the world or Numerology if one of the modules emulated a traditional style linear daw style sequencer. best of all worlds me thinks.

Each to their own;)

[jim]

Maybe I have misunderstood the thread starter

Isnt he requesting a module that represents a more traditional linear style sequencer that makes it easy to input some chords or the basic stuff you would do in any Daw sequencer?


The request is to be able to individually control the length of each 'sub sequence' in the MonoNote (Pitch, Gate, Velocity, etc). That functionality actually came before the MonoNote and is covered through the use of individual CV sequencers --- for the most part, there are a few goodies in the MonoNote that would be hard to duplicated individually. My feeling (echoed by Sjoerd's post yesterday) is that this is really a request for a better way to setup such a system and to have a cleaner UI for it. The StackLibrary covers the first half of that equation: making it easy to setup and re-use a discrete sequencing setup. The second half, making a more compact UI, will have to wait a bit longer.

From my selfish point of view Ive been using Daws now or ten years. While I like the modular style sequencer I also like what Ive been doing for the past ten years. It wouldnt be then end of the world or Numerology if one of the modules emulated a traditional style linear daw style sequencer. best of all worlds me thinks.


I think PianoRoll sequencers are just great, and I have lots of ideas of how one could be integrated into Numerology in a natural and interesting way, but other features have priority right now.

Cheers,
Jim

[circuit]

I think PianoRoll sequencers are just great, and I have lots of ideas of how one could be integrated into Numerology in a natural and interesting way, but other features have priority right now.


I can't wait to see what you come up with there Jim. Don't get me wrong, I love Numerology because everything it does - to me - is near perfect. But I would love to be able to play some sort of riff or melody line and record it into Numerology.

Sure I can fire up another sequencer and do that, but I prefer to run only one sequencer at a time. Put a pianoroll sequencer into N3 Pro and I would upgrade in a heartbeat!

[doctorvague]

To me it would be visually confusing to have different lengths in one sequencer. You'd have to click on some parameter (I guess) to know where each sub-sequence was and what you're looking at could be misleading if you are on the wrong parameter. You'd end up with what amounts to various buried sub-modes of things you're not able to see until you select the right one. Using separate gate, pitch etc sequencers makes more sense because you can see everything at once and what step each one is currently on.

Droolmaster - you being a modular guy I'm surprised you're not drawn to the more modular approach. It just takes a few seconds to drag a seq's into a stack, then you have complete control over all of them and they are separately modulate-able too. Lots of advantages to this approach. It's how I do it 75% of the time vs using a Mononote which I find nice for certain things, but mostly limiting. Using separate ones you can switch only one from 1/8 to 1/16 notes in a particular preset for one example. Lots more mix-and-match options having them separate. When you think about stuff like separately modulating each seq's start and end points the advantage really becomes apparent.