Analogue-sequencer

i   flashed   my p3 with the latest build,

when in aux   edit mode. . 
and selcting gate,or   tie. etc 

its   defaulted   to CC   #   ??
when selecting TIE ..    it shows   CC# 2
 all i want to do is tie notes together   so   my TEEBEE   can slide notes.
from memory the last build   i had ..   to this all i had to do was select 
tie. . and   like magic notes   slid.

now   NOTHING   happens.   How   do   i   make overlapping notes?
 selecting   gate    just shows CC# 1??   what does CC#'1 and gate have in 
common?
is there a user config?    why is gate , tie , skip , xd   eteched on the 
panel   if it doesnt correspond to those functions?   its confusing
im confused




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> when in aux   edit mode. . 
> and selcting gate,or   tie. etc 

In aux edit mode, the STEP MODE button selects the AUX you are editing - A,
B, C or D.
You need to switch UPPER MODE back to VELO, LENG or DELAY to use the step
keys for GATE, TIE, SKIP or Xd.

> is there a user config?    why is gate , tie , skip , xd   
> eteched on the 
> panel   if it doesnt correspond to those functions?   its confusing
> im confused

GATE, TIE, SKIP and Xd are the normal functions of the step keys.
When UPPER MODE is AUX, the line running from the AUX LED down to the 4
letters is supposed to show the STEP MODE is also in AUX mode.
That's how it always was, so I guess you maybe haven't used the auxes
before.
Your Teebee most likely does auto-slide on tied notes.
Just make sure UPPER MODE isn't AUX, and TIE will mean TIE.

Best regards,
Colin Fraser
Sequentix Music Systems Ltd
http://www.sequentix.com

Hi Colin

Can you tell me what actually happens when I apply a % of randomisation to a
value in an aux? I understand that it affects the likelihood of the
programmed value being produced but does it in any way affect the likelihood
of any other value being produced? Or put another way, is the randomly
created value any likelier to be closer to the orginal programmed value or
is there an absolutely equal
likelihood of any value within the available range being produced? The
mathmatical and musical effects of these two possibilties strikes me as
being very different

I'm getting very interested in some of Buchla's ideas and in seeing how I
can using the P3 as a random pattern creation source -  in a way that
randomness can be controlled, shaped and modulated. What I would really like
to have more random modes available at both the track and aux levels.  It is
neat having instant
randomness and the random pattern playback modes are great, and it is great
to be able to control the amount of random variation for each step in the
Auxes. But I would like more control over the how the randomness is produced
and applied.I did make some vague requests in this direction last year but I
am clearer
about what I would like to be able to do: some of these ideas would be more
appropraite for the track level and some would make sense in the Auxes.

I'd like, in the Auxes for example, to be able to use a controllable
"smoothing" algorhythm so that the random number generation can be softened
and biased towards the programmed value. e.g. set at 0% it would just
produce the same value over and over, set at
100% it would be truly random, but set at 50% it would show a 50% bias
towards values closer to programmed step value - as if you could change the
strenghth of gravitational force of the orginal value. The controls for the
mode could be available in some form in the auxes, as both sources and
destinations for further modulation. I think some quite subtle evolving
effects could be created in this way which would be difficult to create
otherwise.

Similar but different (I think) would be a Gaussian distribution which would
bias numbers towards the centre of the available range, I think voltage
controlled random generators tended to have this chracteristic? It would be
nice to have it on the P3 too. This should also have a % control and also a
polarity control, biasing numbers towards
to the top or to the bottom of the available range.

In track mode I could also imagine a random mode with similar controls that
compared the new random value to the last value created. There could also be
some musicially interesting way of biasing whether or not a random number is
likely to be above or below the previous value, but I haven't quite
formulated that yet - I am sure some mathematician will have a name for it.
I think both these ideas
would be good for creating "melodic", more linear streams of values, an
interesting alternative to the more typically "random" sets of values
created when each new value is a completely new roll of the dice.

A way of temporarily overriding programmed values with random modes (and the
existing sculpt mode) would also be an interesting feature for live
playing: when a button is pressed the programmed values of the selected
track are temporarily replaced in real time, when it is released the
preprogrammed values are reverted to.

Another thing I would appreciate is basic templates for LFO shapes and a
range of different arpeggios and interval patterns, so for example if I want
an aux to function like a clocked LFO I could just dial up whatever wave
shape I wanted to use rather than painstakingly programming the values step
by step. Using these I
could, for example, dial up a template of perfectly divided values for all
16 steps. I could then, say, use a tempo synced sine wave pattern to
modulate the distribution biases
within the randomisation being applied to all the values in a pattern.

Phew... my brain hurts.

Don't want much, do I :)

Richard

> Can you tell me what actually happens when I apply a % of 
> randomisation to a
> value in an aux?

The randomisation events for numeric values just set the range of a random
amount that will be added to the original value.
So if you have a velocity of 60, and you set a randomise velocity value of
40 on the same step, the velocity value will be somewhere between 60 and
100.
The percentages of randomisation are for the masking events.

> I understand that it affects the likelihood of the
> programmed value being produced but does it in any way affect 
> the likelihood
> of any other value being produced?

The distribution of the random numbers is uniform - any value is equally
likely to appear (unless the stored value plus maximum random range exceed
the limit for the value being randomised, in which case out-of-range values
all get limited to the maximum value).
I have considered adding lookup tables to give other types of distribution,
but they would take up a lot of ROM.
Calculating weighted distributions on the fly would be too CPU hungry.
And in any case, there is an alternative way to achieve the same effect...
You can use 'grab' events to take values from a pattern on another track.
Then set up the other pattern with a 'random' direction, and fill the
pattern with the set of possible values you'd like to have appear at random.
If you want one value to appear more often than others, put that value on
more than one step in the pattern.
Working with randomisation in this way gives you more of the "melodic"
randomness you're looking for.

> A way of temporarily overriding programmed values with random 
> modes (and the
> existing sculpt mode) would also be an interesting feature for live
> playing: when a button is pressed the programmed values of 
> the selected
> track are temporarily replaced in real time, when it is released the
> preprogrammed values are reverted to.

You can do that with knobs rather than buttons - use knob masking events to
control the auxes doing the randomisation.
The you can 'fade in' the degree of randomisation from play mode.
If you're using one pattern as a source of random values for another, you
could always add some knob controlled randomness to that pattern too.
I think there are a lot of possibilies to explore already in P3, that you
may just not have thought of yet since they are a little less direct than
just being able to choose a distribution curve for direct randomisation of
values.

> Another thing I would appreciate is basic templates for LFO 
> shapes and a
> range of different arpeggios and interval patterns, so for 
> example if I want
> an aux to function like a clocked LFO I could just dial up 
> whatever wave
> shape I wanted to use rather than painstakingly programming 
> the values step
> by step. Using these I
> could, for example, dial up a template of perfectly divided 
> values for all
> 16 steps. I could then, say, use a tempo synced sine wave pattern to
> modulate the distribution biases
> within the randomisation being applied to all the values in a pattern.

There was a suggestion of adding some preset values for auxes to the 'quick
config' page.
I suppose there could be some 'waveshapes' in there, that would apply to the
current 'UPPER' value.
So if you selected AUX C for edit, for example, then did a 'quick config'
and selected 'rising ramp > UPPER', it would write evenly space values from
0 to 127 into AUX C, or whatever else was selected. That could be fun.

Best regards,
Colin Fraser
Sequentix Music Systems Ltd
http://www.sequentix.com