MOTM

You guys can shoot the sh*t all you want for DoMOAS, but as Moe said, this
is a *simple* (translate QUICK TO DESIGN) sequencer. It's not a $1500
Oberkorn. It's BASIC LITLLE sequencer, like the Roland 104.

I'm NOT adding 500 features.

Paul S.

If tou really use the things , you use from 5-7 notes most of 

f wongthe time.

Paul Schreiber wrote:

> 
> You guys can shoot the sh*t all you want for DoMOAS, but as Moe said, this
> is a *simple* (translate QUICK TO DESIGN) sequencer. It's not a $1500
> Oberkorn. It's BASIC LITLLE sequencer, like the Roland 104.
> 
> I'm NOT adding 500 features.
> 
> Paul S.
>

my naive $.02 on the sequencer thing.
i vote for the 'modular sequencer' idea where one starts first with, say a 
basic 1x8 module which then interfaces to.... (purchase #2) some kind of 
master brain module for the sequencer modules(a 1u or 2u module with 
functions for the daughter modules). would it actually be possible to buy 
as many sequencer modules as one liked ?

mark scetta


At 03:56 PM 1/29/01 -0800, you wrote:

> >I agree with Dave, if too much is added then it is no longer a "simple"
> >sequencer. Personally, all I would really want is 8x2 with gate time
> >(global or per step, wicever is easier for Paul to do), internal or
> >external clock and a couple of run directions (foreward, backward etc...).
> >I could spend month using just those features. I've found that more
> >features does not always mean better. Sometimes you can get lost in too
> >many options and never get anything done.
>
>From: davevosh@...
> >Reply-To: motm@yahoogroups.com
> >To: motm@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: Re: [motm] No kitchen sinks in sight
> >Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:12:28 EST
> >
> >In a message dated 01-01-29 07:42:55 EST, you write:
> >
> ><< How about a simple 16 step with 3 position switches for each step? >>
> >
> >
> >
> >i think i see pauls point on this one - a simple, "quick and dirty" 8x2
> >sequencer in the short term with a review and decision process on the
> >"ultimate" sequencer.  i`ve been interested to see the ideas tossed about
> >and
> >so many of them are worthwhile but not in this module.  creeping
> >feature-itis
> >will only slow down the delivery date and raise the price. my experiences
> >may
> >be different than some but i believe that there is definitely a place for
> >simple sequencer modules ( or 2 or 3..... ) even when the "kitchen sink"
> >unit
> >will also be added to the system later.
> >best,
> >dave v.
> >
> >
> >
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
>
>

How about a simple 16 step with 3 position switches for each step? Skip, run,
and rest would be nice. With this type setup there is room for live input, as
you can "play" the switches. Also if it had a rest switch, you could come up
with some rhythmic timings. Add another switch to change from 16 to 2 X 8 and
the possibilities increase.
Quantization would be cool, but this would also make a nice separate module
with other uses as well.
Terry

That's $74 worth of switches!!

Paul S.

----- Original Message -----
From: "T.J." <goku@...>
To: <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: [motm] No kitchen sinks in sight


> How about a simple 16 step with 3 position switches for each step? Skip,
run,
> and rest would be nice. With this type setup there is room for live input,
as
> you can "play" the switches. Also if it had a rest switch, you could come
up
> with some rhythmic timings. Add another switch to change from 16 to 2 X 8
and
> the possibilities increase.
> Quantization would be cool, but this would also make a nice separate
module

> with other uses as well.
> Terry
>
>
>
>
>
>

In message <000d01c089f7$0206c760$023f240a@...>, Paul Schreiber
<synth1@...> writes

(of sequencer switch suggestion)

>That's $74 worth of switches!!
>
>Paul S.
>
IMO run/skip/rest switches for each stage is THEE essential feature on
an analogue sequencer.  To explain, yr sequencer is laid out thusly:

row 1   O O O O O O O O 

row 2   O O O O O O O O

switch  I I I I I I I I

right?  (O represents knob, I represents 3-position switch (like on for
example motm410 for lfo selection) 

when the stage's switch is in the middle, the stage runs as normal,
switch it one way, and you get a rest, IE the sequencer doesn't output a
trigger, switch it the other way, and the sequencer skips to the next
stage. 

doing it this way means you only use 8 switches = $37.  Well worth it,
in fact, I'd put this over an internal clock in terms of importance.  I
believe the Moog modular sequencer did this, but many others, even
including serge's fancy sequencers don't implement it, yet I believe
it's not too difficult to implement.

You can hear what can be done with thios feature on T. Dream's "rubicon"
lp.  It's a good 'un!

that's my opinion, anyway, for those of you who give a ****  ;)

best etc
-- 
norman fay

But what about 1 x 16 mode?

Paul S.

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "norman fay" <NFAY@...>
To: <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 7:43 AM
Subject: [motm] run/skip/rest(?)


> In message <000d01c089f7$0206c760$023f240a@...>, Paul Schreiber
> <synth1@...> writes
> 
> (of sequencer switch suggestion)
> 
> >That's $74 worth of switches!!
> >
> >Paul S.
> >
> IMO run/skip/rest switches for each stage is THEE essential feature on
> an analogue sequencer.  To explain, yr sequencer is laid out thusly:
> 
> row 1   O O O O O O O O 
> 
> row 2   O O O O O O O O
> 
> switch  I I I I I I I I
> 
> right?  (O represents knob, I represents 3-position switch (like on for
> example motm410 for lfo selection) 
> 
> when the stage's switch is in the middle, the stage runs as normal,
> switch it one way, and you get a rest, IE the sequencer doesn't output a
> trigger, switch it the other way, and the sequencer skips to the next
> stage. 
> 
> doing it this way means you only use 8 switches = $37.  Well worth it,
> in fact, I'd put this over an internal clock in terms of importance.  I
> believe the Moog modular sequencer did this, but many others, even
> including serge's fancy sequencers don't implement it, yet I believe
> it's not too difficult to implement.
> 
> You can hear what can be done with thios feature on T. Dream's "rubicon"
> lp.  It's a good 'un!
> 
> that's my opinion, anyway, for those of you who give a ****  ;)
> 
> best etc
> -- 
> norman fay
> 
> 
> 
>

In message <005601c089fd$7a79aea0$023f240a@...>, Paul Schreiber
<synth1@...> writes
>But what about 1 x 16 mode?
>
>Paul S.
>
Well...er....
how is it implemented in the moog sequencer?
I assume the same switch settings would apply to knobs 1-8 and 9-16.  A
compromise, sure, but I'd actually put this feature above a 1 x 16 mode
in the desirability stakes...I think most users would usually use 2 x 8
mode, and have pitch & filter cutoff sequenced
best etc
-- 
norman fay

> I'm NOT adding 500 features.

<smartass>
how about 499? :)
</smartass>


bleep.
out.

The Moog 960 sequencer had all 3 rows affected by the Run/Skip/Stop switch. 
Combining multiple rows for 1x16 or 1x24 requires a 961 sequential switch.  

There are two more features of the 960 that are worth noting:
- The third row can be used to control the timing of the clock - not very useful if
you want to sync to something else though.
- Each stage has a V-trig output that you can combine together in the 962 sequencer
interface so that only certain outputs cause triggers.  You can also vary the gate
time on the 962 but not for each stage.

I like the idea of being able to control the gate time for each stage but that may
have to wait for DoMAS or something else; just don't make it something that you have
to go through 5 levels of menus to get to!  I agree that the goal here is a *simple*
step sequencer!  If Paul does the design right with a PIC (encoders for each step
rather than just pots), lots of programability might be available later...my guess.

Eric

--- norman fay <NFAY@...> wrote:
> In message <005601c089fd$7a79aea0$023f240a@...>, Paul Schreiber
> <synth1@...> writes
> >But what about 1 x 16 mode?
> >
> >Paul S.
> >
> Well...er....
> how is it implemented in the moog sequencer?
> I assume the same switch settings would apply to knobs 1-8 and 9-16.  A
> compromise, sure, but I'd actually put this feature above a 1 x 16 mode
> in the desirability stakes...I think most users would usually use 2 x 8
> mode, and have pitch & filter cutoff sequenced
> best etc
> -- 
> norman fay
> 
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. 
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

The Moog is strictly 8x3, no 16 stage mode included. To get 16 you 
have to chain 2 of them.

Moe

--- In motm@y..., norman fay <NFAY@F...> wrote:
> In message <005601c089fd$7a79aea0$023f240a@a...>, Paul Schreiber
> <synth1@a...> writes
> >But what about 1 x 16 mode?
> >
> >Paul S.
> >
> Well...er....
> how is it implemented in the moog sequencer?
> I assume the same switch settings would apply to knobs 1-8 and 9-
16.  A
> compromise, sure, but I'd actually put this feature above a 1 x 16 
mode
> in the desirability stakes...I think most users would usually use 2 
x 8
> mode, and have pitch & filter cutoff sequenced
> best etc

In a message dated 01-01-29 07:42:55 EST, you write:

<< How about a simple 16 step with 3 position switches for each step? >>



i think i see pauls point on this one - a simple, "quick and dirty" 8x2 
sequencer in the short term with a review and decision process on the 
"ultimate" sequencer.  i`ve been interested to see the ideas tossed about and 
so many of them are worthwhile but not in this module.  creeping feature-itis 
will only slow down the delivery date and raise the price. my experiences may 
be different than some but i believe that there is definitely a place for  
simple sequencer modules ( or 2 or 3..... ) even when the "kitchen sink" unit 
will also be added to the system later. 
best,
dave v.

>I agree with Dave, if too much is added then it is no longer a "simple" 
>sequencer. Personally, all I would really want is 8x2 with gate time 
>(global or per step, wicever is easier for Paul to do), internal or 
>external clock and a couple of run directions (foreward, backward etc...). 
>I could spend month using just those features. I've found that more 
>features does not always mean better. Sometimes you can get lost in too 
>many options and never get anything done.

From: davevosh@...
>Reply-To: motm@yahoogroups.com
>To: motm@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [motm] No kitchen sinks in sight
>Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:12:28 EST
>
>In a message dated 01-01-29 07:42:55 EST, you write:
>
><< How about a simple 16 step with 3 position switches for each step? >>
>
>
>
>i think i see pauls point on this one - a simple, "quick and dirty" 8x2
>sequencer in the short term with a review and decision process on the
>"ultimate" sequencer.  i`ve been interested to see the ideas tossed about 
>and
>so many of them are worthwhile but not in this module.  creeping 
>feature-itis
>will only slow down the delivery date and raise the price. my experiences 
>may
>be different than some but i believe that there is definitely a place for
>simple sequencer modules ( or 2 or 3..... ) even when the "kitchen sink" 
>unit
>will also be added to the system later.
>best,
>dave v.
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com