Analogue-sequencer

Hi Folks

I got an SQ-10 , an a Doepfer MAQ 16/3 . Worths having them If already got a Kenton an a P3?

What can the P3 do that the P3 doesn´t? ( I can´t remember, appart from the 3 rows...)

Thanks , Hans
_________________________________________________________________
¿Sigue el calor? Consulta MSN El tiempo
http://eltiempo.es.msn.com/

I just arranged to buy a doepfer maq 16/3. I have a P3 and I am
wondering about the differences? Do you like the doepfer? How does it
compare to the P3?

hans- I have three maqs & two p3s. I still use one of the maqs & one
of the p3s together in our live rig, & (if I recall correctly) the
force-to-scale on midi-through events feature was added to the p3 at
my request, so that the maq would be processed into the same scale as
p3 events.
anyway- one of the great things about the maq is that it is
idiot-simple, & allows one to alter several step-events
simultaneously. you can change note values, for example, on several
channels at the same time. on the p3, this is harder to achieve &
somewhat less intuitive. this probably isn't a problem for most of us,
but my maqs are used by the drummer in my band. he is also
colour-blind, so using a p3 is not going to happen for him. :-)

but I'd sell the sq unless you are a serious collector (like me) or
else you subscribe the vince clarke's old view (now abandoned, it
seems), that "midi isn't tight enough".
I have an arp 1613 & a roland 104 that I like to muck about with
sometimes, & they do sound tighter than using a
maq/notron/octopus/zeit/schaltwerk/p3 via midi, but at the expense of
flexibility & complexity in one's arrangements. nothing's perfect!

duncan.

>>I just arranged to buy a doepfer maq 16/3. I have a P3 and I am
wondering about the differences? Do you like the doepfer? How does it
compare to the P3?<<

like having a push-bike & a range-rover-sports, if I can go all jeremy
clarkson on you for a moment. :-)

want to go to the top of the hill & admire the view? 
use the bike. 
want to go to the top of the hill with several friends, take a picnic
& make a short film up there? take the range rover. put the bike in
the back of the range rover aswell. I hope this helps... :-)

immediacy/hands-on interaction vs complexity/fleibility/depth. they
are complemetary in my live-rig, not mutually exclusive. I have posted
elsewhere as to why & how... 

the maq, running on more than one channel, & potentially at different
step-ratios, allows one to quickly realise counterpointed, syncopated
& polyrhythmic patterns which can then be copied across into the p3; I
find (& YMMV) this to be quicker than using the p3 alone, whilst the
p3 allows better access to multiple versions of the results, & greater
flexibility in arranging them, especially so that they can interact.

the p3 can be used to force-to-scale the maq's output, a feature
otherwise only achievable by the use of custom patches in y'r synth
engine (we used special patches in emu samplers & later the audity &
proteus modules to achieve non-bum-note stage performances.)

use of the maq is greatly enhanced, btw, if you set up a midi
controller upstream of it to adjust things like the start/loop-point,
the range of adjustment of each row of knobs (number of octaves & so
forth) & this kind of thing. 
with a merge/through arrangement, the same controller can conveniently
be programmed to do things to a downstream device (synth module,
w.h.y.), with the controls arranged by row or midi channel. we
currently use doepfer pocket controls & evolution keyboards to do
this, with merge/thru devices concealed in the backs of the maqs. I
guess it helps to be an engineer.... :-)
again, this arrangement prompted some of the code changes in the p3,
not least the behaviour of the midi-through filtering with controller
messages while the p3 is recording it's midi-input.

I hope some of this is useful.

duncan.

i use my maq with my modular because its handy having the midi to cv built in and the three rows. i use my p3 for midi stuff and pretty much everything else. in my opinion, you don't really need a MAQ if you have a p3. 

--- On Wed, 9/17/08, Jack Nabbits <bjm23@btinternet.com> wrote:

From: Jack Nabbits <bjm23@btinternet.com>
Subject: [analogue-sequencer] Re: Doepfer MAQ 16/3 worths having it, having a P3?
To: analogue-sequencer@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, September 17, 2008, 1:20 AM






I just arranged to buy a doepfer maq 16/3. I have a P3 and I am
wondering about the differences? Do you like the doepfer? How does it
compare to the P3?

 














      

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

Duncan and friends


I´ll get rid of the MAQ, I did several records with it, but the P3 has overpassed it.

I just remember why I didn´t sell it!  It has the feauture to choose between 1 to 5 octaves range , and it transposes up and diminish automatically everytime you turn the dial. Great to get some cool unexpected lines when you change per example from 5 to 1 etc...

One question Duncan, the Maq seems to have a not straight,kind of 909 nice shuffle on it , or that´s the way it sounds to me or it´s terrible sync with the 909 what makes me feel that " cool" thing?

I once asked Colin to introduce that on the P3 , let´s see what he thinks about it,( I remember he said it will take a lot of effort due to the way it was done or something like that)

What about adding it to the nex machine?

Thanks!
________________________________
> To: analogue-sequencer@yahoogroups.com
> From: ferrograph@aol.com
> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:01:02 +0000
> Subject: [analogue-sequencer] Re: Doepfer MAQ 16/3 worths having it, having a P3?
> 
> 
> hans- I have three maqs & two p3s. I still use one of the maqs & one
> of the p3s together in our live rig, & (if I recall correctly) the
> force-to-scale on midi-through events feature was added to the p3 at
> my request, so that the maq would be processed into the same scale as
> p3 events.
> anyway- one of the great things about the maq is that it is
> idiot-simple, & allows one to alter several step-events
> simultaneously. you can change note values, for example, on several
> channels at the same time. on the p3, this is harder to achieve &
> somewhat less intuitive. this probably isn't a problem for most of us,
> but my maqs are used by the drummer in my band. he is also
> colour-blind, so using a p3 is not going to happen for him. :-)
> 
> but I'd sell the sq unless you are a serious collector (like me) or
> else you subscribe the vince clarke's old view (now abandoned, it
> seems), that "midi isn't tight enough".
> I have an arp 1613 & a roland 104 that I like to muck about with
> sometimes, & they do sound tighter than using a
> maq/notron/octopus/zeit/schaltwerk/p3 via midi, but at the expense of
> flexibility & complexity in one's arrangements. nothing's perfect!
> 
> duncan.
> 
> 
> 

_________________________________________________________________
¡Entra en el Club oficial de Messenger y te enterarás de todas las novedades! 
http://www.vivelive.com/ilovemessenger

For How much do them sell nowadays? I get mine unused since I got the P3, it´s just above my 4 panel Doepfer modular just for good looking!!
> 
________________________________
> To: analogue-sequencer@yahoogroups.com
> From: zanalogheaven@yahoo.com
> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 06:42:36 -0700
> Subject: Re: [analogue-sequencer] Re: Doepfer MAQ 16/3 worths having it, having a P3?
> 
> 
> i use my maq with my modular because its handy having the midi to cv built in and the three rows. i use my p3 for midi stuff and pretty much everything else. in my opinion, you don't really need a MAQ if you have a p3.

For How much do they sell nowadays? I get mine unused since I got the P3, it´s just above my 4 panel Doepfer modular just for good looking!!
> 
> --- On Wed, 9/17/08, Jack Nabbits  wrote:
> 
> From: Jack Nabbits 
> Subject: [analogue-sequencer] Re: Doepfer MAQ 16/3 worths having it, having a P3?
> To: analogue-sequencer@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, September 17, 2008, 1:20 AM
> 
> I just arranged to buy a doepfer maq 16/3. I have a P3 and I am
> wondering about the differences? Do you like the doepfer? How does it
> compare to the P3?
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 

_________________________________________________________________
¡Entra en el Club oficial de Messenger y te enterarás de todas las novedades! 
http://www.vivelive.com/ilovemessenger

A very basic sequencer that NOT allows to make ties , and no silences can be done unless you program one row for midi velocity and send 0, loosing that  row instead!  Think about  just like a semi arpeggiator like!

It was supposedly designed among request for Kraftwerk but I guess they were on a terrible hangover or in bike after some tour with not enough blood on the brain! Or kidnaped and anallyraped by M Jackson!

Doepfer never finished it´s software, but with it´s hardware, it could do wonders,( Colin would have done an ultimate machine with that hardware )    Shame= Doepfer

Cool things; 3 rows of buttons and the 1 to 5 octave thing that I explain in the other email

I used it as my only sequencer for several years until the P3 came out ( thanks to  God and Colin)

Hans


________________________________
> To: analogue-sequencer@yahoogroups.com
> From: bjm23@btinternet.com
> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:20:53 +0000
> Subject: [analogue-sequencer] Re: Doepfer MAQ 16/3 worths having it, having a P3?
> 
> 
> I just arranged to buy a doepfer maq 16/3. I have a P3 and I am
> wondering about the differences? Do you like the doepfer? How does it
> compare to the P3?
> 
> 
> 

_________________________________________________________________
Prueba los prototipos de los últimos en MSN Motor
http://motor.es.msn.com/

i can do turn off gates for specific steps on the MAQ. you need to got to one of the modes, the mode it turns on in doesn't do it, but you can turn off gates for each step if you turn the knob all the way to the right in the right mode. it might be PR mode i think.

--- On Wed, 9/17/08, Hans Greuber <turbotron69@hotmail.com> wrote:

From: Hans Greuber <turbotron69@hotmail.com>
Subject: [analogue-sequencer] III Re: Doepfer MAQ 16/3 worths having it, having a P3?
To: analogue-sequencer@yahoogroups.com
Cc: bjm23@btinternet.com
Date: Wednesday, September 17, 2008, 9:53 PM







A very basic sequencer that NOT allows to make ties , and no silences can be done unless you program one row for midi velocity and send 0, loosing that row instead! Think about just like a semi arpeggiator like!

It was supposedly designed among request for Kraftwerk but I guess they were on a terrible hangover or in bike after some tour with not enough blood on the brain! Or kidnaped and anallyraped by M Jackson!

Doepfer never finished it´s software, but with it´s hardware, it could do wonders,( Colin would have done an ultimate machine with that hardware ) Shame= Doepfer

Cool things; 3 rows of buttons and the 1 to 5 octave thing that I explain in the other email

I used it as my only sequencer for several years until the P3 came out ( thanks to God and Colin)

Hans

____________ _________ _________ __
> To: analogue-sequencer@ yahoogroups. com
> From: bjm23@btinternet. com
> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:20:53 +0000
> Subject: [analogue-sequencer ] Re: Doepfer MAQ 16/3 worths having it, having a P3?
> 
> 
> I just arranged to buy a doepfer maq 16/3. I have a P3 and I am
> wondering about the differences? Do you like the doepfer? How does it
> compare to the P3?
> 
> 
> 

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
Prueba los prototipos de los últimos en MSN Motor
http://motor. es.msn.com/ 














      

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

>>turn off gates for specific steps on the MAQ. you need to got to one
of the modes, the mode it turns on in doesn't do it, but you can turn
off gates for each step if you turn the knob all the way to the right
in the right mode. it might be PR mode i think.<<

any of the modes that start with P.... PA1...PA5 or PR1...PR5. the
difference between these two groups is that PR supports remote
transpose by incoming midi notes on the same channel as the row in
question, while PA doesn't.
 
(the P stands for "pause" according to doepfer, which they thought
meant the same as "rest" in their teutonic logical way. there's a
totally separate mechanism, which crept in at v3 I think, for actually
"pausing" a row. it can either be one-shot or it can run when another
row completes, giving up to 48 step sequences.) 

the number is how many octaves the knobs' range is over, & as hans has
mentioned elsewhere, it's quite a laugh altering this while the
thing's running, especially if you have some sort of FTS operating.
this is one example of where the maq & p3 work together well. 

btw, since v1 you can save the default startup setup in a special
memory. I think it used to be preset 0 when the thing only had three
memories total, & changed to be preset 1 or 2 when the thing finally
got 30 memories. but don't quote me... it's been a while. mine always
wake up the same these days; our methodology with these things is
quite entrenched now as any of our audience will know.

as for kraftwerk's involvement- I think what they wanted was a midi
version of that moog 960 knock-off that someone built for them in the
70s. I can't remember the name of it now... klaus schulze had a few of
them too. I don't think they ever intended for it to be at all
sophisticated.... I only wish they'd had the imagination to come up
with something like the p3. thanks heavens colin did. :-)

for me, there's no question of one being better than the other- I have
to have both. in fact, two of each, & a spare maq. & a notron. & an
octopus. & a zeit.

duncan- surrounded by h/w sequencers.

holy crap.


> for me, there's no question of one being better than the other- I have
> to have both. in fact, two of each, & a spare maq. & a notron. & an
> octopus. & a zeit.
>
> duncan- surrounded by h/w sequencers.
>
>  __._
>
> 
>


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

> 
> Hans,
>    thanks for taking the time to explain the various differences. I see that the maq 16/3 looks to be quite poor compared to the p3. I only bought it because it was cheap, £200. I saw one sell on ebay (a black limited edition) for over £500 so I thought I'd get it. I will have a play about with it and see. I find the p3 to be a good machine, I can't believe that the maq 16/3 dosen't allow silences on notes or ties. Are you sure you can't have note off per step?
> 
> Ben


Ben

I don´t remember well, I guess in some mode, if you turn all left the knob is like note off, but if you send CV, step will be triggered and something would be heard.

About Duncan, the mode that the knob controls the lenght is totally NON musical, perhaps for random music is Ok, but not for techno as patterns are not quantized so it´s very difficult to exact a half bar, a full bar etc that I know. synced with any TR

I always wanted to have a Notron, but 10 years ago I never found one.  Could you tellthe differences beetwen it and the P3 please?  What it can do that the P3 doesn´t

Hans
________________________________
> To: analogue-sequencer@yahoogroups.com
> From: ferrograph@aol.com
> Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:31:47 +0000
> Subject: [analogue-sequencer] III Re: Doepfer MAQ 16/3 worths having it, having a P3?
> 
> 
>>>turn off gates for specific steps on the MAQ. you need to got to one
> of the modes, the mode it turns on in doesn't do it, but you can turn
> off gates for each step if you turn the knob all the way to the right
> in the right mode. it might be PR mode i think.<<
> 
> any of the modes that start with P.... PA1...PA5 or PR1...PR5. the
> difference between these two groups is that PR supports remote
> transpose by incoming midi notes on the same channel as the row in
> question, while PA doesn't.
> 
> (the P stands for "pause" according to doepfer, which they thought
> meant the same as "rest" in their teutonic logical way. there's a
> totally separate mechanism, which crept in at v3 I think, for actually
> "pausing" a row. it can either be one-shot or it can run when another
> row completes, giving up to 48 step sequences.)
> 
> the number is how many octaves the knobs' range is over, & as hans has
> mentioned elsewhere, it's quite a laugh altering this while the
> thing's running, especially if you have some sort of FTS operating.
> this is one example of where the maq & p3 work together well.
> 
> btw, since v1 you can save the default startup setup in a special
> memory. I think it used to be preset 0 when the thing only had three
> memories total, & changed to be preset 1 or 2 when the thing finally
> got 30 memories. but don't quote me... it's been a while. mine always
> wake up the same these days; our methodology with these things is
> quite entrenched now as any of our audience will know.
> 
> as for kraftwerk's involvement- I think what they wanted was a midi
> version of that moog 960 knock-off that someone built for them in the
> 70s. I can't remember the name of it now... klaus schulze had a few of
> them too. I don't think they ever intended for it to be at all
> sophisticated.... I only wish they'd had the imagination to come up
> with something like the p3. thanks heavens colin did. :-)
> 
> for me, there's no question of one being better than the other- I have
> to have both. in fact, two of each, & a spare maq. & a notron. & an
> octopus. & a zeit.
> 
> duncan- surrounded by h/w sequencers.
> 
> 
> 

_________________________________________________________________
¿Sigue el calor? Consulta MSN El tiempo
http://eltiempo.es.msn.com/

MAQ ! - I just sold mine and I miss it already, but it was nice to get $800 for it on ebay.  it 
was mainly just for immediate control over notes and up to 48 note long sequences as well as 
generating rolling percussion in a way that was just very fun to experiment with as it was so 
fast for the fingers to create new stuff.

oh well.  I have a lot of learning to do with my newly acquired but many years old "MAM 
SQ16" thats kind of like the P3's little brother, I think?!