Analogue-sequencer

Hi, I using the P3 with os 3.1.007 (licenced to 'ill), err... anyway I
have been reading the v4 usage notes and like the sound of it. Is mem x
expansion required for proper usage?  Appoligies if this is already on
the forum, I haven't had time to go through the back log. Thanks.



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

> Is mem x expansion required for proper usage?

No. I'm running V4 on an unexpanded P3 and it runs just fine.

Tony

www.oakleysound.com

the memX let's you fully use the potential of v4 tho, as you might go
through patterns faster.

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Oakley Sound <oakleylist@btinternet.com>wrote:

>    > Is mem x expansion required for proper usage?
>
> No. I'm running V4 on an unexpanded P3 and it runs just fine.
>
> Tony
>
> www.oakleysound.com
>  
>


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

Thanks for the info people, I'll DL the OS soon and have  a crack at
it. Do you find the V4 to be an improvement in terms of functionality?

Should it be of any interest to anyone there is a few tunes I've made
here: http://www.myspace.com/pawnsphinx

>>Do you find the V4 to be an improvement in terms of functionality?<<

"improvement"'s not the right word... it's different, & permits a
different approach to structuring one's compositions. at first, I
didn't like it & quickly rolled back to v3. later, I went at it again
with renewed vigour & determination. I put in the memory expansion too.

I think what's needed here is a pictorial representation of how the
memory of the machine is divided up. you can do a lot worse than look
at the p3tools s/w to see this. that's what turned me around (& for
which, many thanks!).

as regards the patterns themselves, they work pretty much the same.
it's when you start extending beyond a single 16-step "riff" & making
longer patterns, or copy/pasting things to edit, that the difference
really becomes apparent. 
ironically, the v4 approach means less memory is wasted by transposed
copied patterns, since you can now use ghosts. 

I think I'd still be stuck in v3 if it supported the mem-x, but v4
works for me now I've got my head round it.

d.

--- duncan <ferrograph@aol.com> wrote:

> I think I'd still be stuck in v3 if it supported the
> mem-x, but v4
> works for me now I've got my head round it.

Probably me too - there are unique plusses for both
versions. V4 probably has the edge overall as it
allows you do to pattern "intros" - i.e. several bars
before the pattern's main loop kicks in. And LONG
patterns - cool (even if I never know where the hell
all the patterns are later, in what part etc.) 

:)

V4 doesn't, however, give you the playlist equivalent
of having the same pattern transposed many times in
series; then you make one change to the pattern and it
is replicated across all others. Nor is there a fast
way to quickly reset all the transposes or repeats,
or, indeed, reorder bars with the speed, visibility
and elegance of playlists. 

Perhaps the biggest drawback for me is the loss of the
extra level of editing that playlists gave. I could go
into playlist edit, solo a single pattern by making a
one-step playlist, then go into the pattern and make
extensive edits. I could then exit up into playlist
edit and have another option to save (or not) the
playlist having independently tweaked a pattern or
patterns. I miss that a lot.

If Colin had an infinite amount of time to give away
to us for free, I'd love the P3 to feature a "final"
MEMX version of v3 playlists with up to 16 patterns
per track, a playlist loop for intros (and outtros)
plus all the little extras that have gone in since v4
but are not related to playlists/bars. If that
happened it would keep him occupied a while and for no
return. So personally, I will continue to watch for
any advances as I'm (very) ready for the next big
thing. 

Dunno if that helps or confuses. Par for the course.

Paul

---
"Effectus super absolutionem"
http://www.JointIntelligenceCommittee.com
http://www.myspace.com/jointintelligencecommittee

--- In analogue-sequencer@yahoogroups.com, Paul Nagle <softroom@...>
wrote:
>
> --- duncan <ferrograph@...> wrote:
> 
> > I think I'd still be stuck in v3 if it supported the
> > mem-x, but v4
> > works for me now I've got my head round it.
> 
> Probably me too - there are unique plusses for both
> versions. V4 probably has the edge overall as it
> allows you do to pattern "intros" - i.e. several bars
> before the pattern's main loop kicks in. And LONG
> patterns - cool (even if I never know where the hell
> all the patterns are later, in what part etc.) 
> 
> :)
> 
> V4 doesn't, however, give you the playlist equivalent
> of having the same pattern transposed many times in
> series; then you make one change to the pattern and it
> is replicated across all others. Nor is there a fast
> way to quickly reset all the transposes or repeats,
> or, indeed, reorder bars with the speed, visibility
> and elegance of playlists. 
> 
> Perhaps the biggest drawback for me is the loss of the
> extra level of editing that playlists gave. I could go
> into playlist edit, solo a single pattern by making a
> one-step playlist, then go into the pattern and make
> extensive edits. I could then exit up into playlist
> edit and have another option to save (or not) the
> playlist having independently tweaked a pattern or
> patterns. I miss that a lot.
> 
> If Colin had an infinite amount of time to give away
> to us for free, I'd love the P3 to feature a "final"
> MEMX version of v3 playlists with up to 16 patterns
> per track, a playlist loop for intros (and outtros)
> plus all the little extras that have gone in since v4
> but are not related to playlists/bars. If that
> happened it would keep him occupied a while and for no
> return. So personally, I will continue to watch for
> any advances as I'm (very) ready for the next big
> thing. 
> 
> Dunno if that helps or confuses. Par for the course.
> 
> Paul
> 
> ---
> "Effectus super absolutionem"
> http://www.JointIntelligenceCommittee.com
> http://www.myspace.com/jointintelligencecommittee
>

Hi Paul,

I recently purchased a P3. I have been using the new OS for about a
month now. I am hoping you can enlighten me on the relationship
between parts with bars, and the part ordering and playback.

I have set up one part with 8 tracks, all of which have 5 bars of
music. When I play this part alone it works perfectly. It plays each
bar in order with the number of repeats I set. Then I copy this part
using the Page 3 function Copy Active from Part 1 to Part 2. If I play
part 2 alone it also performs perfectly imitating the bar structure I
copied.

The problem arises when I select Part 1 and 2. I would expect that
Part 1 would play all 5 bars, then move to Part2 and play all 5 bars.
It does not. Instead it cycles through the first bar of each part.

I am guessing I have to set some global parameters but I can not
figure out what to do and I dont see anything in the release notes.
Any help appreciated.

John, P3 novice

strangerwillrobinson wrote:

> The problem arises when I select Part 1 and 2. I would expect that
> Part 1 would play all 5 bars, then move to Part2 and play all 5 bars.
> It does not. Instead it cycles through the first bar of each part.

Indeedy. It depends on the length of your global bar. Check out some of 
the other part-related pages using page and each track key - IIRC global 
bar is on page 2. If you're alternating between parts, the global bar 
(and repeat count) determines how long you stay in that part until it 
moves on to the next. I wonder if the max legnth with repeats is enough 
for the maximum number of bars (with repeats)? Must go look... :)

Hope that helps, if not Colin will surely advise.

-- 
Paul
---
"Effectus super absolutionem"
http://www.JointIntelligenceCommittee.com
http://www.myspace.com/jointintelligencecommittee

My plan is, erm, to stick to good ole' v3 on the P3.

And wait for the Cirklon which I'm presuming will be more akin to v4?

Anyway, the P3 has the playlist legend on the front panel, so no way am I
gonna get rid of them. ;-) 

> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: analogue-sequencer@yahoogroups.com 
> >[mailto:analogue-sequencer@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Nagle
> >Sent: 27 August 2008 14:17
> >To: analogue-sequencer@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: Re: [analogue-sequencer] Re: Mem x and v4 os
> >
> >--- duncan <ferrograph@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I think I'd still be stuck in v3 if it supported the mem-x, but v4 
> >> works for me now I've got my head round it.
> >
> >Probably me too - there are unique plusses for both 
> >versions. V4 probably has the edge overall as it allows you 
> >do to pattern "intros" - i.e. several bars before the 
> >pattern's main loop kicks in. And LONG patterns - cool (even 
> >if I never know where the hell all the patterns are later, 
> >in what part etc.) 
> >
> >:)
> >
> >V4 doesn't, however, give you the playlist equivalent of 
> >having the same pattern transposed many times in series; 
> >then you make one change to the pattern and it is replicated 
> >across all others. Nor is there a fast way to quickly reset 
> >all the transposes or repeats, or, indeed, reorder bars with 
> >the speed, visibility and elegance of playlists. 
> >
> >Perhaps the biggest drawback for me is the loss of the extra 
> >level of editing that playlists gave. I could go into 
> >playlist edit, solo a single pattern by making a one-step 
> >playlist, then go into the pattern and make extensive edits. 
> >I could then exit up into playlist edit and have another 
> >option to save (or not) the playlist having independently 
> >tweaked a pattern or patterns. I miss that a lot.
> >
> >If Colin had an infinite amount of time to give away to us 
> >for free, I'd love the P3 to feature a "final"
> >MEMX version of v3 playlists with up to 16 patterns per 
> >track, a playlist loop for intros (and outtros) plus all the 
> >little extras that have gone in since v4 but are not related 
> >to playlists/bars. If that happened it would keep him 
> >occupied a while and for no return. So personally, I will 
> >continue to watch for any advances as I'm (very) ready for 
> >the next big thing. 
> >
> >Dunno if that helps or confuses. Par for the course.
> >
> >Paul
> >
> >---
> >"Effectus super absolutionem"
> >http://www.JointIntelligenceCommittee.com
> >http://www.myspace.com/jointintelligencecommittee
> >
> >------------------------------------
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >

--- In analogue-sequencer@yahoogroups.com, Softroom <softroom@...> wrote:
>
> strangerwillrobinson wrote:
> 
> > The problem arises when I select Part 1 and 2. I would expect that
> > Part 1 would play all 5 bars, then move to Part2 and play all 5 bars.
> > It does not. Instead it cycles through the first bar of each part.
> 
> Indeedy. It depends on the length of your global bar. Check out some of 
> the other part-related pages using page and each track key - IIRC
global 
> bar is on page 2. If you're alternating between parts, the global bar 
> (and repeat count) determines how long you stay in that part until it 
> moves on to the next. I wonder if the max legnth with repeats is enough 
> for the maximum number of bars (with repeats)? Must go look... :)
> 
> Hope that helps, if not Colin will surely advise.
> 
> -- 
> Paul
> ---
> "Effectus super absolutionem"
> http://www.JointIntelligenceCommittee.com
> http://www.myspace.com/jointintelligencecommittee
>
ha ha - that was it. seems obvious now, but i am learning this thing
from scratch. Thanks!!!

John

--- In analogue-sequencer@yahoogroups.com, Softroom <softroom@...> wrote:
>
> strangerwillrobinson wrote:
> 
> > The problem arises when I select Part 1 and 2. I would expect that
> > Part 1 would play all 5 bars, then move to Part2 and play all 5 bars.
> > It does not. Instead it cycles through the first bar of each part.
> 
> Indeedy. It depends on the length of your global bar. Check out some of 
> the other part-related pages using page and each track key - IIRC
global 
> bar is on page 2. If you're alternating between parts, the global bar 
> (and repeat count) determines how long you stay in that part until it 
> moves on to the next. I wonder if the max legnth with repeats is enough 
> for the maximum number of bars (with repeats)? Must go look... :)
> 
> Hope that helps, if not Colin will surely advise.
> 
> -- 
> Paul
> ---
> "Effectus super absolutionem"
> http://www.JointIntelligenceCommittee.com
> http://www.myspace.com/jointintelligencecommittee
>

You know what, unless I am missing something the max length is not
enough. I had 5 bars in one part with some repeats on each. When I did
the math my total length was longer than 256 which is the global bar
length max. I had to add parts just to get these extra bars in. Hope
that helps.

John

> 
> You know what, unless I am missing something the max length is not
> enough. I had 5 bars in one part with some repeats on each. When I did
> the math my total length was longer than 256 which is the global bar
> length max. I had to add parts just to get these extra bars in. Hope
> that helps.

You can set PCReps to have each part in a chain play for a multiple number
of global bar loops, up to 128 times.
But it is possible to make a pattern that is longer than the maximum time a
part will play in a chain, using a combination of slow tbases, multiple bars
and bar repeats.

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

Hi Colin,
hope things run well with upcomming project :-)
in the meantime do you have any news on latest v4 changes/improvments  
talked in laste few months
für us happy P3 OSv4 users?

cheers,
henry

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