5 Unit Hardware Sequencers VS. Numerology

[sunsinger]

don't want to do the math, but I'm not sure that 256th notes at a fast tempo is nearly as fast as clocking an analog sequencer with an oscillator, for instance. I've never heard of anyone getting true audio rate sequencing from a midi sequencer, but maybe I'm wrong. And plus - how exactly would you do it - with an analog sequencer, you'd actually be processing the cv as audio - what is the equivalent here?

As far as tuning tables - this is not quite the same thing as what I'm talking about (though I do very much like that capability). I'm simply talking about adjusting, knob per knob, with continuous pitch.

Ahh, I understand... Well it's true, Numerology cant do everything.

I'm about to put up a simple (unmixed) track to show a little of what I'm doing,[/quote] in a few minutes here.

[bwhittington]

Not to labor the point even worse, but this kind of thing is why hardware sequencers will always give me a thrill...

Thanks for the link. I love his stuff!

Cheers,
Brian

[sunsinger]

Kindredlost just sent me this link:



Of course I've seen it, and the others that do this. I love those sequences. They are inspiring. And what you are talking about is also inspiring. In fact, the next really good licensing fee I get or TV show, I'll probably run out and buy one of those setups. I LOVE HARDWARE SEQUENCERS!

I've had a bout of real creativity with my Suite & Tie Guy, Suite of Time Modules. Cool, immediate, and satisfying to the max. I use them all of the time.

But in my last post I said I'm putting up some Numerology tracks. I sure they will not be that impressive, but it may show a little twinkle of capability.

Wait, what? As I understand it, you want to flick a switch and have the sequencer run at 1/2 or 1/4 clock, correct? That is not what the knobs do on the m563, they change the duration of the outbound gate pulses.

You wouldn't need four clock dividers, you would need one (assuming you bought one with /2 and /4 outputs) and then something like the m591 (or the MOTM-700 or any number of other creative solutions) to switch between the options.

But you're right, hardware sequencers are probably not for you.

What makes me drool re the m569 is the expanders. Using a creative patching between the step input expander, the step output expander, and the reset switches per step, I could create an initial sequence of four steps then a secondary, 'hidden' sequence of three steps, then use a foot pedal to decide when to switch to my hidden sequence. Switching back from there by disengaging the pedal, the four note sequence could run until I leap out of my chair and disengage the reset allowing the full run of seven steps, etc.

It's this ability to interact with the sequencer that excites me... to be able to dynamically resequence steps with foot pedals and clock dividers or condition the length of a sequence based on how loud (envelope follower) or high (comparator on a v/oct CV) another voice is. This may all be possible, and even more flexible with software, but I have so little interest in getting all of this hooked up to a tower.

This is all dreaming, of course... I need to save that money first.

[sunsinger]

Sorry, that was Brian that sent the link to that vid, No ... wrong again...
Kindredlost. Messages are coming pretty fast, hard to keep up and compose at the same time

[Nelson Baboon]

Still not sure what you're referring to as audio rate sequencing - I'm not referring to the actual synths making the sounds with control signals coming in at that rate - for analog sequencing, you're talking about the cv going so fast that you can use them as audio, and can manipulate the waveforms by the knobs, etc. How in the world are you doing this with Numerology? Or am I missing something (always possible).

Wish I could look at that video now, but can't at work.

[Nelson Baboon]

Don't think that Numerology can do sequential switching of audio sources, can it? Or do it with control signals with ease?

For example, with the Doepfer a-155, I can use the inputs to put in an audio source at every step - this is very cool (playing the audio out the cv out). OR, you can combine the regular knob settings with cv input from other sources - lfos, sequencers, even audio, and use them as control signals.

[sunsinger]

Whoa there... I don't go that deep into the program yet. I'm still rediscovering it myself. I'm just using the Mono sequencer, Poly sequencer, Chord Sequencer, Sampling Drum Machine, Audio Unit hosting of Soft Synths, and LFO stuff.

I know there is alot of stuff Jim's been working on and alot it will do that I don't know how to use yet. So you'd have to go on the Five12 forum to ask those questions.

Like I've mentioned. I'm still pretty new to the modular world and pretty much an amateur at that fancy patching still. So I don't even fathom completely what your asking from a patching point of view. But the Doepfer sounds pretty cool.

[JohnLRice]

Sorry to bring up this rather sore subject again. Maybe John Rice could chime in and clarify how a 569 works and how many modules I would need to buy to run it.

OK, I'm late to this party and I think a lot of the questions have already been answered but . . . since I heard my name being summonded from the depths of hell, I'll give a few responces.

Ah, so then you would need 4 clock dividers synced to a single clock to achieve this.

If you want each of the 4 rows to run at different but synched rates then yes, you need to provide different clock rates to the Shift inputs. Ther are several dividers on the market and while several are less expensive than the MOTM-730, from what I've seen I think it's the 'best' one and is what I have:



Of course, if you want to do 1 to 4 rows that are NON-SYNC'D, then you just need 1 to 4 LFOs/VCOs patched into the shift inputs. I don't know, can a software sequencer provide different clock rates per track that are NOT just a subdividion of the master clock? And . . . then you could have the output CV of row 1 controlling row 2's shift LFO rate and the output CV of row 2 controlling row 3's shift LFO rate and the output CV of row 3 controlling row 4's shift LFO rate and the output CV of row 4 controlling row 1's shift LFO rate!!!! I haven't played around with this yet . . . but I am now that I thought of it!

Isn't that what the "Last Sequencer You Will Ever Need!" should provide.

The exact qoute is "The last analog sequencer you‘ll ever need..." so . . . they ain't sayin' it can do everything a digital or software sequencer can do or completely replace them. Sure, still a bold statement but there is nothing wrong with taking a little pride in your work letting the marketing guys do their thing! 8_)

How many modules do you need to buy to actually run this thing?

Well, it IS a modular sequencer so usually no one module does everything you need all on it's own! With maybe the exception of Serge and Buchla sort of but I have no experience with those. Even Numeralogy doesn't have VCOs, VCFs, VCAs, EGs, etc, etc so it is pretty much totally useless without having to buy a bunch of other stuff, right?

Back to my original posting on this tired subject. I can do these operations, and much more, on unlimited sequence lines with a stupid $120.00 software program

I know that hardware is sexy, and I love my modular more than anything in my studio, but spending $3000.00 + on modules to complete a 4 line, 8 note sequencer seems a little silly to me in comparison.

I'm running 5 sequenced lines right now any way I wish to with 16 notes or more. I'm only limited by how many Midi to CV converters I have. Five now. And those things are cheap per voice.

Numerology is looking more attractive as my permanent sequencer as I count how many other cool modules from Modcan & others I can buy with that kind of money.

Closing thoughts . . .

If you are solely working in a studio enviroment and have definite musical ideas in your head and you are mainly concerned with getting them realized as quickly and as economically as possible, then I think software sequencers are your best bet!

If you plan on performing live paLEASE just don't sit on stage with with a laptop! I find that to be one of the most boring and annoying types of 'performances'! It's about as exciting as sitting at Starbucks listening to an iPOD while watching the guy at the next table check his email on the free wifi. Seeing somebody do something in real time, or at least seeing some THING do something in real time makes for an interesting performance IMHO. For practicalities sake in a live solo situation I think that a modular combined with either a computer or a hardware midi sequencer makes the most sense to ME but everyone has different goals and desires.

And, I think with live in general but especially in creative endevors . . LIMITATIONS ARE YOUR FRIEND! Something that can do everything with the least amount of effort becomes boring and uninspiring very quickly IMHO. Trying to to work around limitations tends to make you 'better' and often leads you in directions and to discoveries you may not of ever thought of.

[Nelson Baboon]

...And, I think with live in general but especially in creative endevors . . LIMITATIONS ARE YOUR FRIEND! Something that can do everything with the least amount of effort becomes boring and uninspiring very quickly IMHO. Trying to to work around limitations tends to make you 'better' and often leads you in directions and to discoveries you may not of ever thought of.

While I think that there is truth to it, that quote ("Limitations..."), and even moreso 'Less is more', drive me fucking batty (but in a calm way, to please Herr Trashwaveform).

I really don't believe that it's the limitations themselves that are your friends. I don't trust limitations, and I think that friends, by definition, are things that you trust. I am deliberately abusing this metaphor, because bad metaphors are my friends.

What limitations do in those circumstances where they deceive you into believing that they are your friends, is direct your creative process down certain roads that you may not have discovered otherwise. But I don't see that necessarily as arising exclusively from limitations - it could result from a cleverly designed UI, or perhaps even experience in directing yourself down those roads, etc. I think that it may be true that too few limitations can be disorienting until you become familiar with your options, and so gradually increasing your options over time is sometimes the way to approach something.

But ultimately, I don't think that analog sequencers succeed BECAUSE of their limitations.

I also am quite annoyed at this point at the attitude, which pops up all of the time - why should I spend thousands on this analog stuff if I can do it all in Numerology? Well, most likely, you're exactly right. The proof of why you should spend the money is not something that can really be explained to you, so you really have to spend the money to know. And then you might decide to go back to numerology again, which is an amazing program in its own right. So, I'd say, ultimately, just fucking use Numerology, and don't bother people about it, because you'll never get an answer that you'll really like, except for the obvious stuff, like things that analog sequencers can do that numerology can't, etc - but these have been covered.

(swallows yet another quaalude)

[sunsinger]

Wow! I thought that this one had been put to bed already.

When I invoked your name John, regarding how many modules it takes to run the Moon 569, I was referring to the modules required to operate it as a fully functioning, fully optioned sequencer. Not the question of how many oscillators, filters, etc. it takes to screw in a lightbulb.

You know what I mean... Like the way a Q960 sequencer's functionality is improved by the Q961, Q962 and the Q963 and another Q960 or two. Thereby increasing the cost of an $800.00 sequencer to an $1100 or more for fully functioning, well optioned one.

In the case of the Moon 569 that figure goes up. For a barebones 569- $1800... $2300 if you just include the M564 Sequential Divider and the M 563 Midi to Clock... Add a MOTM 730 & 400.00 to send 4 individual clocks. My guess is that you will probably want to add a quantizer, the M569 EG and ES modules, & the 565E Quantizer Controller, ad infinitum. This gets rather expensive quickly. For a sequencer with 4 rows of 16 notes ea. once expanded

If you plan on performing live paLEASE just don't sit on stage with with a laptop! I find that to be one of the most boring and annoying types of 'performances'! It's about as exciting as sitting at Starbucks listening to an iPOD while watching the guy at the next table check his email on the free wifi. Seeing somebody do something in real time, or at least seeing some THING do something in real time makes for an interesting performance IMHO. For practicalities sake in a live solo situation I think that a modular combined with either a computer or a hardware midi sequencer makes the most sense to ME but everyone has different goals and desires.

Yeah, I have seen the silly shows, a bunch of guys sitting around with laptops, blue faces, and a mouse trying to make music... I think that these exhibitions belong in,,, well... a Dada art festival.

If I do perform live, it will be with a modular, several other fine analog synths, treated electric guitar, and treated Native American flutes.
My Mac rarely fails, and I believe it can be used live without the loss of face as a serious musician.


I've seen Robert Rich, Steve Roach, Michael Stearns, and Thomas Dolby,
Kraftwerk, and Tangerine Dream perform live, and they have all had a little laptop (or a much bigger computer these days) with them.

Just a couple of photos..

Notice 3 laptops, 2 with Robert's rig


Notice laptop screen lower right of modular



That said, I have already spent about oodles of dough on my modular, which includes the an expensive hardware sequencer. I'm not rich. I had to sacrifice a good number of solid synthesizers to come to the land of Modular heaven.

I also am quite annoyed at this point at the attitude, which pops up all of the time - why should I spend thousands on this analog stuff if I can do it all in Numerology? Well, most likely, you're exactly right. The proof of why you should spend the money is not something that can really be explained to you, so you really have to spend the money to know. And then you might decide to go back to numerology again, which is an amazing program in its own right. So, I'd say, ultimately, just fucking use Numerology, and don't bother people about it, because you'll never get an answer that you'll really like, except for the obvious stuff, like things that analog sequencers can do that numerology can't, etc - but these have been covered.

I know that from some of the reactions to this thread, that a bunch of you would like to see me dry up and blow away. Ok, I get it...

I suspect that my initial questions were very poorly framed, and that my logic was faulty, and not representative of my true intentions.

So, while I'm saving up to buy the ultra fancy, ticking clockworks that advance and distribute voltages, I have already moved on, and I am using Numerology... and after this entry I will just stop bothering people about it..

My true motivations were as I've already mentioned much earlier...

I know that there are folks out there who are saving up to buy their next DYI filter, noise mangler, first Dot.Com setup or such. I guess I was talking to these folks. Wrong thread perhaps...

There is a way to get the sequencing glory obtained by thousands of dollars of hardware by investing in a little software program that works. Save up for that new VCDO you want instead. I know your out there.

[JohnLRice]

While I think that there is truth to it, that quote ("Limitations..."), and even moreso 'Less is more', drive me fucking batty (but in a calm way, to please Herr Trashwaveform).

I really don't believe that it's the limitations themselves that are your friends. I don't trust limitations, and I think that friends, by definition, are things that you trust. I am deliberately abusing this metaphor, because bad metaphors are my friends.

Don't worry, "limitations" will remain your friend, even if you aren't a friend to limitations! 8_) It's sort of a "tuff love" sort of friendship.

On relection however, I should of maybe more accurately said "limitations are not always your enemy and options are not always your friend"

[Nelson Baboon]

I just think that the point is pretty silly is that I don't think that 'either side' is going to convince anyone of anything. And you don't even need to convince me - Numerology is wonderful, and, all in all, has more capabiitlies than all of the analog sequencers combined (of course with allowances for the things that it can't do). But yet, aside from any considerations that I really could explain logically, I just have much more fun and feel much more inspired with the serendipity that arises from using hardware step sequencers, especially those of the analog race.

All that you say is true, but I don't think that you'll come close to convincing lovers of these quaint instruments, because most of them have already been through this old argument, and have found their sequencing home....

And in a way it is very similar to trying to convince the user of softsynths that it's worthwhile to spend thousands of dollars on analog synths, let alone modular synths, when in reality, a WIDER variety of sounds can be produced by a bunch of softsynths. And, then you have all of those people who claim (perhaps correctly) that in blind tests, people can't tell the difference. Of course, my idea of creating music isn't to let someone else create it while I'm blindfolded, but this doesn't seem to matter to these idiots.

So, I suppose to sum up - thank you so much for enlightening all of us analog sequencer users that our money could be much better spent. After I sell all of my analog sequencers, I'll buy you an expensive beer.

...

I know that from some of the reactions to this thread, that a bunch of you would like to see me dry up and blow away. Ok, I get it...

I suspect that my initial questions were very poorly framed, and that my logic was faulty, and not representative of my true intentions.

So, while I'm saving up to buy the ultra fancy, ticking clockworks that advances and distributes voltages, I have already moved on, and I am using Numerology and after this entry I will just stop bothering people about it..

My true motivations were this...

I know that there are folks out there who are saving up to buy their next DYI filter, noise mangler, or such. I guess I was just talking to these folks. Wrong thread perhaps...

There is a way to get the audio glory obtained by thousands of dollars of hardware by investing in a little software program that works. Save up for that new VCDO you want instead. I know your out there.

[ach_gott]

Don't worry, "limitations" will remain your friend, even if you aren't a friend to limitations! 8_) It's sort of a "tuff love" sort of friendship.

On relection however, I should of maybe more accurately said "limitations are not always your enemy and options are not always your friend"

Here is how I would phrase it. When you start on a new piece you are faced with an empty page (or blank armed track, as it were). There is a universe of possibilities available and innumerable questions to answer. Basing some part it around a piece of gear takes some of these questions off the table.

I would prefer to use a hardware sequence like this: instead of thinking, "What am I going to do with these 32 steps?" I approach as "Given the structure of the song I'm about to write, what is the best use of this sequencer to achieve my goals?"

And then there's the serendipity from throwing some shit together with cables and seeing what happens. Good times.

[Nelson Baboon]

...
Here is how I would phrase it. When you start on a new piece you are faced with an empty page (or blank armed track, as it were). There is a universe of possibilities available and innumerable questions to answer. Basing some part it around a piece of gear takes some of these questions off the table.

"innumerable questions to answer"? When I begin a new piece I generally have to answer 11 questions, no more or no less. They aren't always the same questions, but there are always 11. I have always been puzzled by this.

I would prefer to use a hardware sequence like this: instead of thinking, "What am I going to do with these 32 steps?" I approach as "Given the structure of the song I'm about to write, what is the best use of this sequencer to achieve my goals?"

I yearn to suggest that if your goal is to create a song with a certain structure, that something like Numerology would be better.

And then there's the serendipity from throwing some shit together with cables and seeing what happens. Good times.

Yes. This. There is far more difference between a physical cable and a virtual cable than there is between a virtual analog synth and a real analog synth. This difference can be quantified exactly with the unit 'ertzel'.

[JohnLRice]

Wow! I thought that this one had been put to bed already.

First off Ron, I hopes you know that I wasn't coming down on you at all! I just have a hard time staying out of sequencer related threads and since my name was mentioned, I thought I would jam a stick into this slumbering bee hive!

When invoked your name John, regarding how many modules it takes to run the Moon 569, I was referring to the modules required to operate it as a fully functioning fully optioned sequencer. Not the question of how many Oscillators, filters, etc. it takes to screw in a lightbulb.

What I was trying to point out is that there never really is a definite point of "full functionality" you can reach that will always satisfy eveyone in ever situation. Just a VCO and a power supply "could" be used to create music, but of course, having a few other modules makes it nicer!

You know what I mean... Like the way a Q960 sequencer's functionality is improved by the Q961, Q962 and the Q963 and another Q960 or two. Thereby increasing the cost of an $800.00 sequencer to an $1100 or more for fully functioning, well optioned one.

In the case of the Moon 569 that figure goes up. For a barebones 569- $1800... $2300 if you just include the M564 Sequential Divider and the M 563 Midi to Clock... Add a MOTM 730 to send 4 individual clocks. My guess is that you will probably want to add a quantizer, the M569 EG and ES modules, The 565E Quantizer Controller, ad infinitum. This gets rather expensive quickly. For a sequencer.

The M569 is one of the most complete 5U hardware sequencers I've seen. I know that the Modcan, Klee and Milton are also very powerful too but have never compared them feature for feature.

With the M569, the M564 or other sequential switch isn't really needed for most uses. It has one knob to set the sequence mode and the sequence modes take care of a lot of what a typical 960+962 combination does. See this document for a couplete description:
http://www.lunar-experience.com/DOWN/569.pdf

It of course has a built in clock so no external clock needed unless you want to run it at different rates etc. The MIDI2Clock is a great module but only nessesary if you want to slave the M569 to a MIDI sequencer/drum machine etc.

A trigger sequencer and the option M569 expander panels would be great but, not nessesary. Each row can run up/down/random and there are a lot of switchable options at each step etc.

The M569 does have a quantizer built in already so an external one isn't nessesary unless you want to do something beyond basic semitone stuff (unfortunately the cool quantizer controller doesn't work with the built in quantizer though! )

I know that from some of the reactions to this thread, that a bunch of you would like to see me dry up and blow away. Ok, I get it...

I sure hope you didn't get that impression from ME! I look forward to seeing your setup and hearing your music, regarless of how it is implemented! 8_)

[ach_gott]

I yearn to suggest that if your goal is to create a song with a certain structure, that something like Numerology would be better.

8 notes repeated for 6 minutes is a structure, a structure I have heard many, many times at that. You're right, though, it's not what I usually do.

But I should have pointed out that I don't use analog sequencers as the focal point of a song, but as part of a voice (or voices) within the song. So, for example, in the next song I'm writing, I've laid out a murky interior section. There are four 'voices' sequenced on the P3 and 6-8 voices playing on the modular. The clock divider is being used to determine whether one voice is a major or minor third above another, when the gates fire, when an envelope fires to change the resonance, etc. I'm sequencing events... and I'll decide through trial and error of patching which events are which divisions. The midi note on doesn't determine the gate for most of the notes, just the pitches to be used.

This is in theory. Hopefully it sounds damn good.

So when I get my hands on a fully expanded m569, I'll be using it not as typically 1-4 tracks, but as pitch sequences. In an algorithmic fashion. But in an algorithmic fashion that I can experiment hands on.

[JohnLRice]

Of course, if you want to do 1 to 4 rows that are NON-SYNC'D, then you just need 1 to 4 LFOs/VCOs patched into the shift inputs. I don't know, can a software sequencer provide different clock rates per track that are NOT just a subdividion of the master clock? And . . . then you could have the output CV of row 1 controlling row 2's shift LFO rate and the output CV of row 2 controlling row 3's shift LFO rate and the output CV of row 3 controlling row 4's shift LFO rate and the output CV of row 4 controlling row 1's shift LFO rate!!!! I haven't played around with this yet . . . but I am now that I thought of it!

Uuuhhhmmm . . . . . I probably didn't give it enough effort but I gave this a try anyways, sort of. Three rows are controlling themselves etc. FWIW, here it is:

[video][/video]

[Nelson Baboon]

Nice....

[sunsinger]

Very Subotnicky... Just add a bit of water, makes it's own sauce.

[suitandtieguy]

what the fuck is going on?

[sunsinger]

what the fuck is going on?

"That would be telling."
Number 6 to Number 2, "The Prisoner" circa 1960's