Complex sequences using Moon 569 what else is essential ?

Moog, Synthesizers.com, MOTM, Modcan, Moon and others..... Go big!

Moderators: Kent, Joe., luketeaford, lisa

JohnLRice

Post by JohnLRice » Wed Jan 29, 2014 6:09 pm

Analog Music wrote:When I look at the 568 and 569 it reminds me of starting with a blank canvas so you can paint freely or make music .
That is an excellent way to look at it! :tu:

Ohes
Common Wiggler
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 4:23 pm

Post by Ohes » Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:43 am

Hello Muff,

Just wondering about something :

I have a M569 and Moon Modular midi to clock module.

Admitting, On M569, my first row is clocked by midi, and my second one clocked by a random/adjustable square LFO, I'm generating a polyrhytm right?

I have midi reset for one of my LFOs (Moog Voyager's one), is it working too?

What is the benefit to have a dedicated clock if it's working by this way?

(just trying to think about it with minimum tool requirement)

Thanks

User avatar
osc1899
Common Wiggler
Posts: 213
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 6:27 am
Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands

Post by osc1899 » Fri Feb 06, 2015 12:08 pm

Very useful info here :tu:

JohnLRice

Post by JohnLRice » Fri Feb 06, 2015 1:32 pm

Ohes wrote: On M569, my first row is clocked by midi, and my second one clocked by a random/adjustable square LFO, I'm generating a poly-rhythm right?
I wouldn't usually consider a steady rhythm together with a random one a poly-rhythm. Typically you'd want all parts of a poly-rhythm to have a common denominator. This article may be helpful: http://f.unkster.tripod.com/polyrhythm.html
Ohes wrote:What is the benefit to have a dedicated clock if it's working by this way?
If you are using all external clocks the internal clock really isn't useful, although you could for instance have the internal clock driving row 1, the 553 Midi to clock driving row 2 and the LFO driving row 3?

User avatar
kindredlost
5U skiff friendly
Posts: 5708
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:45 pm
Location: Texoma

Post by kindredlost » Fri Feb 06, 2015 2:51 pm

Ohes wrote: On M569, my first row is clocked by midi, and my second one clocked by a random/adjustable square LFO, I'm generating a polyrhytm right?
JLR is right. With random or mathematically unrelated rhythms you will have what is sometimes referred to as an arhythmic relation or non-rhythmic beat. One which has no "felt" beat.

In essence this is probably the easiest thing to do with clocks. Polyrhythms are more demanding to keep everything tied together in a connected manner.

It may sound non-rhythmic if it is mathematically complex enough. Like if you have a 13:11 ratio or something but even then you can usually discern a pattern regardless of whether it is a toe-tapper or not.

User avatar
analogjeff
Common Wiggler
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:24 pm

Post by analogjeff » Fri Feb 06, 2015 4:39 pm

The moon quad 8 step trigger sequencer works great with the 569!!!

User avatar
steffengrondahl
Wiggling with Experience
Posts: 400
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 6:25 am
Location: Denmark

Post by steffengrondahl » Fri Feb 06, 2015 4:47 pm

Can't you make polyrhythm by setting step length to different values? For instance let row 1 on the 569 be 8 steps long, but row 2 only 6 steps long (by setting step 7 and 8 to skip or step 7 to reset)? Thus driving both rows with the same clock (internal or ecternal). 569 in 4x8 mode in this example.

Or is polyrhythm abount different clock rates for the two sequencers? Then the Moon 554 could be useful.

Just :hmm: (Too sleepy to dig into the thread now, so sorry if this has allready been answered)

JohnLRice

Post by JohnLRice » Fri Feb 06, 2015 7:38 pm

steffengrondahl wrote:Can't you make polyrhythm by setting step length to different values? For instance let row 1 on the 569 be 8 steps long, but row 2 only 6 steps long (by setting step 7 and 8 to skip or step 7 to reset)? Thus driving both rows with the same clock (internal or ecternal). 569 in 4x8 mode in this example.
Close but not quite. If you set both rows to 6 steps each (step 7 reset ON) and then on row 1 your turned off the gates for steps 2, 3, 5 and 6 and on row 2 your turned off the gates for steps 2, 4, 6 you'd have a "2 against 3" poly-rhytm:

1 2 3 4 5 6
1 x x 4 x x - row 1
1 x 3 x 5 x - row 2

User avatar
blw
Wiggling with Experience
Posts: 277
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 8:30 pm

Post by blw » Fri Feb 06, 2015 8:55 pm

Analog Music wrote:I just figured with the Slim Phatty I would get all of those modules in one unit plus I could get that Moog sound , patch memory , and they can be poly-chained together to play chords .
The set up you propose has some advantages but also some limitations. Mainly, while the Slim Phatty is cheap, interfaces well with multiple units, and also has standard MIDI applications, I don't think it achieves that classic "Moog sound" nearly as well as a even a basic handful of modules. I like the Little Phatty, but to me it doesn't do the rawness of vintage gear well. And of course, modules pose their own range of advantages over a fixed synth. Mainly, you use the sequencer to control a lot more than pitch and filter cutoff. Both viable tools, but the sounds you program might actually be quite different.

Regarding your initial question, despite the 569 having a quantizer, I find myself using it with a programmable quantizer most of the time. Being able to pull specific notes in and out of a static sequence is an easy-breezy way to add complexity. The 564 is a great companion as well. Though it is true that the 569 can do an awful lot, just within itself. Not a bad idea to just start with it and go from there.

Ohes
Common Wiggler
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 4:23 pm

Post by Ohes » Sat Feb 07, 2015 4:44 am

Ok,
thanks for your answers, very usefull, I understand now why it's no possible with a random LFO square clock.

but i'm wondering now, JLR, at the start of the topic you said :
All you really need is the 569! thumbs up But additional modules make some things easier and other things actually possible, in particular a multi-output clock divider and an external clock.
I saw your explanation picture but don't really undertsand, how can you make "real" polyrhythm with only 569? can you bring us more details?

thanks a lot

JohnLRice

Post by JohnLRice » Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:54 am

Ohes wrote:Ok,
thanks for your answers, very usefull, I understand now why it's no possible with a random LFO square clock.

but i'm wondering now, JLR, at the start of the topic you said :
All you really need is the 569! thumbs up But additional modules make some things easier and other things actually possible, in particular a multi-output clock divider and an external clock.
I saw your explanation picture but don't really undertsand, how can you make "real" polyrhythm with only 569? can you bring us more details?

thanks a lot
I'll try to do a demo this weekend. :party:

Ohes
Common Wiggler
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 4:23 pm

Post by Ohes » Sat Feb 07, 2015 8:38 am

I'll try to do a demo this weekend. w00t
It could be so greaaat :yay:

thanks JLR[/quote]

JohnLRice

Post by JohnLRice » Sat Feb 07, 2015 7:47 pm

JohnLRice wrote:If you set both rows to 6 steps each (step 7 reset ON) and then on row 1 your turned off the gates for steps 2, 3, 5 and 6 and on row 2 your turned off the gates for steps 2, 4, 6 you'd have a "2 against 3" poly-rhytm:

1 2 3 4 5 6
1 x x 4 x x - row 1
1 x 3 x 5 x - row 2
Here is a video demo for the above description, enjoy! 8_)

[video][/video]

User avatar
ear ear
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 1253
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 11:10 am

Post by ear ear » Sun Feb 08, 2015 5:15 pm

Depending on how far one wants to go with polyrhythms, I would suggest that the Modcan B Quad LFO and switches (and multiples thereof) would be more efficient and more flexible than going the fast clock + dividers + logic route. What does everyone else reckon?

The reason I'm suggesting this is that with the Quad LFO the divisions are a function of the bar length (the bar length is set by one of the LFOs), whereas the fast clock + dividers + logic way the bar length is a function of the clock speed and the sum of the division ratios.

The dividers method is fine if you want only two rhythms against each other at once and this remains constant throughout your piece: just AND your two divider outputs of choice to get a pulse at the start of every bar. It's doable if you want three rhythms throughout the piece: with e.g. /2, /3 and /5, AND all three to get you bar, AND /2 and /3 to get five beats per bar, AND /2 and /5 to get three beats per bar, and AND /3 and /5 to get two beats per bar.

But what happens to your bar length if you use dividers and change the active divisions in the middle of a piece? I'm assuming the OP wants his/her bar length constant? You'd need to run your clock through all the division ratios you want to use in the piece, AND them all for your bar, and also AND all combinations of n-1 division ratios, where n is the total of the division ratios to be used in the piece. :zombie: This approach is just about enabled by the COA 5 panel, for example, with its twelve AND gates, but it isn't something I see or read lots about? Apart from the ANDing orgy (the LFOs method scales better, no?), this requires setting things up to function in a certain way beforehand. The Quad LFO method could be planned or you could just swap rhythms in and out as you wish. All because everything else is a function of the bar length, not the other way round.

Does this make sense, or am I a) wrong, b) crazy, c) wrong and crazy?
He throws the ink first and works out what it is later. "I've got to turn that into parrots." - Ralph Steadman

JohnLRice

Post by JohnLRice » Sun Feb 08, 2015 6:29 pm

ear ear wrote:Depending on how far one wants to go with polyrhythms, I would suggest that the Modcan B Quad LFO and switches (and multiples thereof) would be more efficient and more flexible than going the fast clock + dividers + logic route. What does everyone else reckon?
I've never had a Modcan Quad LFO unfortunately :cry: but it seems that method wouldn't really be much different than using dividers? :hmm: The methods are just "upside down" from each other I think?

If your divider has enough outputs and subdivisions you don't really need to do the AND logic to get your downbeat. For instance for 2 against 3 take a divide by 6 as your downbeat, for 3 against 4 take divide by 12 as the downbeat etc. And sure, the more complex the polyrhythm the less likely that you'll have a handy division that matches your downbeat and you may have to chain 2 or more dividers together and maybe even use a logic module etc. :spin:

User avatar
ear ear
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 1253
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 11:10 am

Post by ear ear » Mon Feb 09, 2015 3:59 am

John, what you're saying is completely true as far as it goes, but, if we take your three against four example, what happens if you want to change mid-piece to three against five with the same bar length? Your divider would need to have a /60 output, and taking your divider outputs directly to give each rhythm wouldn't work. The /5 output, for example, would give twelve beats per bar. Larger division ratios on dividers are often powers of four, on the presumption you'll be using them to count larger numbers of bars in 4/4 - like the Moon Octal Divider, for example.
He throws the ink first and works out what it is later. "I've got to turn that into parrots." - Ralph Steadman

JohnLRice

Post by JohnLRice » Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:52 am

ear ear wrote:John, what you're saying is completely true as far as it goes, but, if we take your three against four example, what happens if you want to change mid-piece to three against five with the same bar length? Your divider would need to have a /60 output, and taking your divider outputs directly to give each rhythm wouldn't work. The /5 output, for example, would give twelve beats per bar. Larger division ratios on dividers are often powers of four, on the presumption you'll be using them to count larger numbers of bars in 4/4 - like the Moon Octal Divider, for example.
Too tired to think about it right now! :ripbanana: :hihi:

Just finished a new video sort of based on the current discussion (it's 3 against 4) and posted it in the black hole bottomless pit called You Tunes Here :roll: :hihi: viewtopic.php?p=1801506

User avatar
101010oxo
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 10:47 am
Location: Germany

Post by 101010oxo » Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:47 am

JohnLRice wrote:Just finished a new video sort of based on the current discussion (it's 3 against 4)
Really like your new video! Thanks for making that :tu:
Image

JohnLRice

Post by JohnLRice » Mon Feb 09, 2015 12:50 pm

101010oxo wrote:
JohnLRice wrote:Just finished a new video sort of based on the current discussion (it's 3 against 4)
Really like your new video! Thanks for making that :tu:
Thanks, I'm glad you liked it! 8_)

JohnLRice

Post by JohnLRice » Tue Feb 10, 2015 3:17 am

JohnLRice wrote:
ear ear wrote:John, what you're saying is completely true as far as it goes, but, if we take your three against four example, what happens if you want to change mid-piece to three against five with the same bar length? Your divider would need to have a /60 output, and taking your divider outputs directly to give each rhythm wouldn't work. The /5 output, for example, would give twelve beats per bar. Larger division ratios on dividers are often powers of four, on the presumption you'll be using them to count larger numbers of bars in 4/4 - like the Moon Octal Divider, for example.
Too tired to think about it right now! :ripbanana: :hihi:

Just finished a new video sort of based on the current discussion (it's 3 against 4) and posted it in the black hole bottomless pit called You Tunes Here :roll: :hihi: viewtopic.php?p=1801506
uiuuhhmm, wut? :hmm: :mrgreen:

OK, an hour later I'm back! :oops: Took me a little bit of head scratching but I got my Moon 554 setup to simultaneously produce divisions of 3, 4, 5 and 60 and using my (moduified) 591 switch I could switch back and for between 3 against 4 and 3 against 5. :tu: Here's a link to the quick and dirty video:


All that said, as more and more complex polyrhythms were attempted it wouldn't take too long before I ran out of division power and would need a logic module or two and maybe additional dividers etc. I wish I had a Modcan Quad LFO so I could compare techniques!
:rastanana: :trampoline: :domodance:

User avatar
ear ear
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 1253
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 11:10 am

Post by ear ear » Tue Feb 10, 2015 4:15 am

Ah, of course - chaining dividers! Nice one, John! :tu:
He throws the ink first and works out what it is later. "I've got to turn that into parrots." - Ralph Steadman

User avatar
ear ear
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 1253
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 11:10 am

Post by ear ear » Fri Feb 13, 2015 4:41 pm

JohnLRice wrote:I wish I had a Modcan Quad LFO so I could compare techniques!
:rastanana: :trampoline: :domodance:
Hint acknowledged! :smash:

I have one, I'll see what I can do.
He throws the ink first and works out what it is later. "I've got to turn that into parrots." - Ralph Steadman

JohnLRice

Post by JohnLRice » Fri Feb 13, 2015 5:26 pm

ear ear wrote:
JohnLRice wrote:I wish I had a Modcan Quad LFO so I could compare techniques!
:rastanana: :trampoline: :domodance:
Hint acknowledged! :smash:

I have one, I'll see what I can do.
Well, I wasn't hinting, I really wish I had one :mrgreen: , but if you can do a demo that would be sweet! :tu:

Ohes
Common Wiggler
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 4:23 pm

Post by Ohes » Thu Feb 19, 2015 11:51 am

Thanks JLR for that video! :yay:

It made me visualise the thing.

But just a noob question :
Is it only possible by dividing the 2 rows by 6 steps, with M569, to get polyrhythm?

If I understand well polyrhythm principle, if the number of steps have common denominators it's working as polyrhytmic sequence right?

Do you have other configuration examples? With 8 steps?

like this :

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 x x x 5 x x x row1
1 x x 4 x x 7 x row2

If some are interested, here is a link about human traditional euclidean rhythms from different parts of the world :
http://cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/~godfried/publi ... /banff.pdf

Thanks for your help

JohnLRice

Post by JohnLRice » Thu Feb 19, 2015 1:01 pm

Ohes wrote:But just a noob question :
Is it only possible by dividing the 2 rows by 6 steps, with M569, to get polyrhythm?

If I understand well polyrhythm principle, if the number of steps have common denominators it's working as polyrhytmic sequence right?

Do you have other configuration examples? With 8 steps?

like this :

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 x x x 5 x x x row1
1 x x 4 x x 7 x row2
Hi,

Your above example doesn't work correctly because row 2 isn't even, it has groups of 3, 3 and 2 instead of 3, 3 and 3. It would probably still sound pretty cool but it wouldn't be the polyrhythm you are expecting. 8_)

I'd have to take the time to verify it with a little math but it is "maybe" possible to obtain polyrhythms with higher common denominators using only a M569 by using rows to shift other rows. :spin: The following video is an example of this technique. I wasn't thinking about trying to create specific polyrhythms in it but, listening to it I'm "pretty sure" it is possible? :hyper:
[video][/video]

Post Reply

Return to “5U Format Modules”