Devices with more complex sequencers are readily available, acquire one if software sequencing is too powerful.

Yes, powerful. Software sequencers left hardware sequencers utterly in the dust, even in the 90s. You can run a sequencer on your phone more powerful than that now.

No need to lug around 20 lb computer and CRT, either.

Plenty of other companies in the last 30 years have also implemented "full-spec sequencers", but your response missed the point of the words you quoted.

Put simply, just because something is a technical possibility doesn't mean it's a good use of resources in a given product.

You might as well ask why so many synths have only basic FX instead of a pro-quality, fully-programmable FX unit.

edited, thx

...no, would be more like if all built-in reverbs were limited to .01ms because "this is a synth not an effects box, so just use a PC or go buy a reverb, you hobo."

OP is not wondering why they aren't fully-editable graphic piano rolls, just why not a small (reasonable) multiple of bars?

Adjusted for inflation they would cost about $1800 USD

They were meant to be your entire production workflow, or the heart of your home studio setup, sequencing other synths without sequencers, or ignoring the sequencers of those that did via MIDI

They were multimbral Romplers with nice sequencers on board

No one ever envisioned a studio full of such devices, all synced together all playing different tracks

That same workflow and mindflow still exist today in the form of the many great dedicated hardware sequencers

If you really want the experience of using a Yamaha RM1 or QY700 get Ya used Yamaha MU50 for about $100 and a Squarp Pyramid. The Pyramid will do anything the old Yamaha Boxes could do and more, and the MU50 will give you the same 32 Part Multimbrality and Yamaha AWM instrument sounds and drums kits along with the same effects

But the reality is the market is just not there in 2022 for a 32 part Rompler with a built in sequencer, so you drop the Rompler part and create fantastic dedicated sequencers that work with any synth, or just use Abelton, Cubase, Logic, etc

<insert obligatory 'as a software engineer myself'>, this is mostly where I fall as well. I see synth sequencers of this sort as kind of 'deluxe arpeggiators' with regard to usefulness.

BUT, it's the non-workstation devices that yet have sequencing as something of a primary feature performance-wise where I don't understand such severe limits (1 bar, etc.). And yes, there are lots of options for overcoming this, but that doesn't stop me from scratching my head in puzzlement over certain product design choices <obligatory 'as a software engineer'>.

Funny it should be mentioned, as Yamaha's RM1x / RS7000 sequencing scheme is still my all-time favorite, but yeah, that's more of a workstation situation there. Although, even the lowly QY20 had the same scheme.

ok, lets limit the bars to 16 for the discussion.
That's not even the 32 bars the Roland MC303 had in the nineties. Can we agree, that a MC707 for example could at least have 16 bars then in 2022?

And i already would be happy, if it would be possible to chain patterns and include a function, that long notes don't get cut at pattern changes.

Another member described this above as possible on the analog four. I would be fine with this. This would solve many problems.


Not to cut notes at pattern changes or expand the bars at least up to 16 are very humble wishes compared to improvement lists like this (great one) here:
Dear Yamaha: Please make an updated/expanded RS 7000.

And that's the point. The op wants his step sequencers to have many bars and thinks it's trivial to add to any device that currently doesn't do it . No one is arguing we shouldn't have sequencers that can record long passages but simple step sequencers aren't the right tool for the job.

A sequencer is not a lineair device, it’s a non lineair device. So you compose non lineair
If lineair composing is your thing, use a “drag an drop building blocks on a timeline” lineair daw instead.

We are not talking about all sequencers though. We are talking specifically about simple step sequencers built into synths. Everyone in the thread already has sequencers that can record as many bars as they need. Even the op has one in his pyramid but he doesn't want to use it.

I'm pretty sure all the step sequencers in the 90's did have limited bar counts.

Can you please stick to what i said and stop lying i would not use my Pyramid seq?

And i also said in #132

and for nostalgic reasons, here a quote from the soundonsound "MC909" review from 2003:

'...Pattern Creation

The 909 takes the familiar pattern-based sequencing approach, and up to 200 user Patterns can be created. These may have up to 16 tracks each (double the MC505's eight) and can be up to 998 bars long, with time signatures ranging from 2/4 to 9/16. Sonic variety may be added by recording synth control and/or mix tweaks in real time over the top of Patterns, which can then be chained into Songs (up to 50 Patterns per Song). This 'automation' data shows up in one of the 909's editing modes and can be edited. Note that you cannot record knob tweaks and mix alterations dynamically over a complete Song, which is arguably when it would be best to do this.

A software sequencer-like display and and edit list are available for detailed MIDI event editing in Microscope mode. Note the velocity stalks in the lower portion of the display.The basic building block of the Pattern could be as far as you need to go, if you work in a linear fashion: a 998-bar 4/4 Pattern running at 120bpm would last 33 minutes 15 seconds — long enough for most purposes! Roland have been generous with sequencer memory: the 909 has enough for about 1.3 million MIDI notes (the MC505 accommodates 95,000 notes, a respectable number in itself). Yet another enhancement is the 909's timing resolution: 480 pulses per quarter note is a big improvement over the 505's 96ppqn.

The recording process is remarkably straightforward, largely thanks to the LCD. Pressing the Record button accesses the recording Menu, and here you can choose between real-time, standard step-time and classic Roland drum-machine style step-time recording, dubbed TR-Rec. Input for the sequencer can come from an external MIDI keyboard, or from the front-panel row of 16 very good velocity-sensitive pads. These are used to trigger samples, pound out drum parts, and even play chords and riffs with melodic sounds. Their layout isn't ideal for the last purpose, however.

Comprehensive input quantising (with percentage weighting options) is available during real-time recording, and Patterns loop while you record different parts into them. Note that you can't have different track lengths within a Pattern. Also, if you've recorded multiple tracks over a repeating loop and you don't like the last track you recorded, using 'Undo' erases the whole recording, because it's treated as one action. Undo in general is not as easy as it could be, because it takes about four button pushes to enable. Trying to Undo in Pattern Edit mode is particularly annoying...."

You need a Phantom…

You have told more than one of us in the thread you don't want to use the Pyramid for this and want the sequencer built in to your synths. If you are using the Pyramid for this then why are you complaining about not being able to record more than 4 bars?

Where did i say, i don't want to use the Pyramid for longer than 4 bar patterns?

And what does it have to do with asking companies to make at least 16 bars possible on their boxes instead of only 4? Especially when - in Rolands case - they started their product line with 32 bars (MC303) in 1986 and had 998bars on the MC909 in 2003?

Don't you understand that sometimes i just want to take only one box with me and be able to record 16 bar ideas? Or that others might not have a Pyramid or similar?

Look at TB-303 arguably THEE sequencer. Don't think we even need to go into detail here.

You'd have that packed with 16 bars?

Ridiculous.

There’s two things here:

1). The basic premise of more bars. This is totally reasonable and I agree and support it. My first piece of studio gear was an RM1X and I still have it and love it so I’m on board.

2). Getting really upset about it and shouting at people who don’t agree. This weakens your position and makes your ‘ask’ sound like it’s a fringe/unusual request. Most people won’t/can’t see why you would want a more powerful sequencer but getting annoyed with them won’t help.

Where did i shout at them?
And how would you react, if the same member tells you 25 times "No, you don't need 16 barsi nstead of 4" no matter, how you try to explain why?

TB 303 = 4 bars (long notes /slides get cut at pattern change)
Avalon Bassline 8 bars

Posts 4. 8. 13, 30 and others.
When you keep saying you can't achieve what you want to do when you can do it with Pyramid then that gives the impression you are not using Pyramid for that. When people have said use your Pyramid or similar then you never say "yes I'm doing that" and instead complain about how you can't do it.



Yes I do understand that but you seem to be partly looking at the wrong tools for the job and partly not understanding how things work.

Now you sound like you’re shouting at me for agreeing with you!

Maybe it’s just a tone thing and apologies if so.

To answer your question, I wouldn’t react at all. Why engage if someone doesn’t agree?

Just untrue. A sequencer can be non-linear, linear, or something in between.

The first sequencers (and the modern ones that try to replicate that workflow) were non-linear just because of the limitations of the technology of the era. When later advancements in technology made it possible, sequencers capable of linear recording were released by various manufacturers (e.g. the Roland MC-500, Alesis MMT-8, or the Kawai Q-80).

But what is not a good idea IMHO is to expect a full linear behaviour from a pure old-style step sequencer. Why should I need 999 bars in a single pattern? Just make shorter patterns and chain them. The rationale behind using patterns is the reutilization of song data (essentially, data "compression"). Having long patterns breaks this principle and makes them unnecessary.

Your 303 must be broken. They can do longer patterns than that and notes won't get cut when changing patterns unless you want them to.

These companies must have the best spam filters.

post 4 and 30 are not mine (#30 you wrote)
and in no post i said, i cant achieve with or use for what i want the Pyramid.

i see... and do you thiink that"s good to have?

No one has told you you don't need 16 bars.
We've been telling you how to achieve it.

Yes

Non-linear step sequencers and linear wysiwyg sequencers like in a DAW are really two different instruments to me.

Step sequencers are made for short repetitive phrases and make it easy to change a sequence on the fly, which explains the step limitation. That's not a design flaw, but intentional, as it gets difficult to see what's going once a sequence extents the visible steps. I find 4 bars comfortable to work with on a 16 button step sequencer, but beyond that it gets difficult to keep up with what's going on.

There's nothing wrong with your desire to want a sequencer that can handle more than 1/2/4 bars per pattern, but that's what DAWs are for. Much easier to work with and see what's going on in the arrangement. Putting that in hardware would require a more intelligent UI design.