MOTM

mate_stubb@... wrote:
>
> One of my personal favorites is CV stage selection. 

Mine too. Imagine using the output of the 320 to control
stage selection and then playing with the shape to change
the time relationships between notes with the overall
sequence length remaining constant.

I also like the implementation used in the Wiard sequencer,
in that if both clock and VC stage select are present the
resulting stage selected is an XOR of the two inputs. By
manually changing the VC stage select you can change the 
order the stages play on the fly. 

However, I've gone down the same road and reached the same
conclusions as you. A kitchen sink sequencer just won't do.
I'd rather see the sequencer broken out into separate modules
like the SuperMoe. Alternately, try to keep the cost down on
the first MOTM sequencer. As soon as you have one you'll
want two, ad infinitum. Four simple sequencers are probably
more useful than one monster sequencer.

And while I'm at it, I'd like to vote for a SuperMoe Panel
run.

Tomy

In a message dated 1/28/2001 12:42:58 PM, thudson@... writes:

>I'd rather see the sequencer broken out into separate modules
>like the SuperMoe. Alternately, try to keep the cost down on
>the first MOTM sequencer. As soon as you have one you'll
>want two, ad infinitum. Four simple sequencers are probably
>more useful than one monster sequencer.

Yeah, absolutely!  Although, I've used some very basic sequencers (8 stages 
one row in one direction only with no hold or random inputs, only a reset and 
a clock input) which aren't terribly useful -- there are some basic additions 
that are essential for a good general purpose sequecer (Moe listed many).


>And while I'm at it, I'd like to vote for a SuperMoe Panel
>run.

An interesting idea! I guess Moe (or someone) would also have to layout the 
associated PCBs -- but there might be a fair amount of interest in something 
like this.
JB