Originally Posted by mrcarboncopy ➡️

This is long and kind of off topic but I think there's a hole in the market that isn't being served and for the people who say "get a workstation" or "use a daw" I wanted to explain why more fully featured sequencers would be a welcome addition, especially if combined with multitimbrality.

I've been thinking about this a lot because I can't stop dreaming about an analog style workstation. There are so many products that get close but nobody has put all of the features together into a good package yet.

I record music one track at a time into a DAW but like a lot of people who use computers all day I sometimes like to get away from screens. I also can't always be in the studio and like the idea of a standalone device that I can create a whole track with away from all of my other gear.

I have a few vintage analogs, effects, and mixer and it's a lot of fun to get everything synced up with different sequences running in realtime with no computer involved. But then the dream is to be able to save the state of everything, to record knob automation, and all of those other great features of modern hybrid analog/digital instruments.

Taking any existing Sequential poly and making it multitimbral and adding a decent realtime sequencer that you can just hit record and play into would be amazing. You know like the multi-trak did almost 40 years ago.



Tape machines didn't need screens. Multi track looper pedals don't have screens. The Sequential six-trak and multi-track didn't have screens. Vintage hardware sequencers didn't have screens. Some of us just want to be able to select a track, hit record, and play into it in realtime.

It doesn't need elaborate piano roll editing. Controls could be as simple as start point, loop point, quantize grid, and quantize amount. A global scale quantize and transpose control that affects all tracks would be great. Save the entire state of all of the patches and sequences into a song and let each song have say 8 or 16 sections selectable from buttons. Then make it possible to copy and paste sections so you can create variations. A feature like Ableton's capture button would be great too.

My dream machine would be:
- analog preferably, va would be fine, ideally hybrid with some analog voices and some poly sample playback voices. Even just one sampler part for drum sounds would be nice
- knobby subtractive synth interface and keyboard
- 8 part multitimbral
- each sequencer track can be a different length
- some basic effects on each track (drive, eq, delay)
- a couple of return effects (delay, verb)
- master eq and compression
- automation/motion sequencing/parameter locks/whatever you want to call it
- classic, beautiful, timeless, inspiring design. don't need rainbow LEDs or weird edm graphics and fonts
- minimal screen usage, and what's there should be nice to look at (ableton push 2) and provide useful contextual information that expands the physical gui like showing the filter curve while you tweak a cutoff knob
- would ideally have some audio tracks as well that could be used for hard disk recording or live looping

What's available:
Workstations - many of these tick all of the feature boxes proving that it's technically feasible, they just don't have good interfaces and don't feel inspiring. It's like a midi controller with an ipad and you're still stuck doing everything on a tiny screen.

Maschine+, Akai Force, etc - Similar problem in a different form factor. These also do almost everything I want but have weird workflows and bad interfaces. For example on Maschine+ you have the great Monark plugin but a horrible interface for programming it. 2 screens which are mostly wasted with filler graphics and don't give any useful visual feedback to what you're doing. Maybe I should have gotten the Force instead.

Elektron - beautiful design but weird interfaces. Why would you make an 8 track machine and put only 7 knobs on it? Wouldn't it be nice to have 8 knobs in a row and hit a button that says "volume" and there's your 8 channel mixer, and then another button for pan.

Roland JDXA, Jupiter X, XM - JDXA, getting close! But no individual track lengths. Jupiters, no sequencer.

Multitimbral VAs like Virus - no sequencer

Vintage Six-Trak, Multitrack, etc - tempting but it sure would be nice to have a more modern update on that type of design with a nice knobby interface and more fully featured synth voices.

OP-1 - beautiful and inspiring timeless design, nice portable all in one design. But it would be nice to have something a little more fully featured with a real keyboard and a standard knobby interface to program sounds.

Maybe there's something I'm missing. I know this probably sounds like the Homer Simpson car but I really don't think so. There are so many things that are so close but nobody has put it all together in just the right way imo.

Originally Posted by mrcarboncopy ➡️

Sequencers don't need a lot of UI, that just gets in the way. I'm not talking about knobby modular style step sequencers or needing to painstakingly edit midi events on a piano roll. I just want to select a track, hit record, play, and have it loop when I stop. After the fact I would like the option to quantize and to change the start and end points of the loop, and that's it.

A recording style sequencer just needs buttons to select the tracks, a tempo knob, record button, play/pause button. Basically what the Sequential Multi-Trak had. Or a Keystep.

Think of it this way. Synths used to have complex modulation matrixes buried in menus but someone clever came up with the idea of touch a source knob, touch a destination, done. No menu diving necessary, uses existing physical interface, simple, intuitive, gets out of the way and lets you be creative. I think sequencers and workstation type instruments are long overdue for that type of clever and elegant design thinking. Instead they've gone in the opposite direction of over complexity, algorithmic probabilities per note, and all kinds of other arcane features that aren't really necessary if you just want to play music.

Originally Posted by mrcarboncopy ➡️

Exactly. Let the sequencer be invisible. It's actually way easier to use that way. Give us less interface not more.



Great example. Clever, creative, simple, intuitive.



Sequencers don't need a lot of UI, that just gets in the way. I'm not talking about knobby modular style step sequencers or needing to painstakingly edit midi events on a piano roll. I just want to select a track, hit record, play, and have it loop when I stop. After the fact I would like the option to quantize and to change the start and end points of the loop, and that's it.

A recording style sequencer just needs buttons to select the tracks, a tempo knob, record button, play/pause button. Basically what the Sequential Multi-Trak had. Or a Keystep.

Think of it this way. Synths used to have complex modulation matrixes buried in menus but someone clever came up with the idea of touch a source knob, touch a destination, done. No menu diving necessary, uses existing physical interface, simple, intuitive, gets out of the way and lets you be creative. I think sequencers and workstation type instruments are long overdue for that type of clever and elegant design thinking. Instead they've gone in the opposite direction of over complexity, algorithmic probabilities per note, and all kinds of other arcane features that aren't really necessary if you just want to play music.

Originally Posted by Pym ➡️

Check out the Pro3 for a paraphonic sequencer in that vein.
Or like literally the entire Tempest was built with all this in mind.

Originally Posted by mrcarboncopy ➡️

Both just 16 steps though right? Can they have different track lengths? Maybe it's because I come from more of a rock background but I can't understand how it would be useful to have 16 tracks that are all just one bar long and loop together at the same time. Normally I'll have something like a 2 bar bass line that repeats and then an 8 bar chord sequence that changes on top of that and maybe a drum beat that has a fill at the end of every 4 bars. And that's just very basic stuff, not even getting into polymeter type of structures that are really fun to play with.

Originally Posted by mrcarboncopy ➡️

Both just 16 steps though right? Can they have different track lengths? Maybe it's because I come from more of a rock background but I can't understand how it would be useful to have 16 tracks that are all just one bar long and loop together at the same time. Normally I'll have something like a 2 bar bass line that repeats and then an 8 bar chord sequence that changes on top of that and maybe a drum beat that has a fill at the end of every 4 bars. And that's just very basic stuff, not even getting into polymeter type of structures that are really fun to play with.

Originally Posted by dhancaster ➡️

My single favorite set of buttons on a hardware sequencer were on my MPC4000. The bar <<>> advance buttons. With the simple visual feedback of knowing which bar you are on, and the mechanical, unbreakable confidence of pressing those buttons with literally a 'mental count' of where you were going to, it is like riding a bicycle. I'm at bar 17 and I want to be at bar 25, i press the >> button 8 times. I don't even need to look at the machine for that, the mental picture you have of what you are creating becomes your DAW arrange window. Press the Stop button to stop where you are, press it twice to return to zero. People learn these things like they learn playing a piano or using a bow and arrow. Way too much emphasis is put on visually deciphering a context sensitive shifting sands visual UI of a graphical sequencer nowadays. People have all these powerful features in the DAW and scratch their heads wondering why they're working 10 times slower than they did when using some older hardware.

This reminds me of something that struck me using Kontakt in the years before I finally had enough and left it behind, when you dragged on a sample or two and expected to set their attack/decay/release, and discovered that an envelope is *not* part of a default instrument or group in Kontakt. That you would have to use an arcane, tiny, hard to see fixed bitmap UI and dig through the modules to 'apply' an ADSR to your instrument groups. To put this in context hardware samplers from 20 years earlier had default envelopes or modulation fields intrinsic to the samples or programs. You didn't have to waste any time on this kind of crap as you invented sounds, you just immediately went to the release field and turned a knob while triggering the sound till you heard what you wanted. I'm not sure if it stems from the influx of a lot of non-musical coders being employed in building software instruments versus perhaps engineers on the older kit having a closer connection to the musical purpose of the gear. It relates to the questions above about sequencing, the core thing is people want to play something they thought of and have play back to them and maybe arrange more of those ideas. We don't always need a microscopically detailed Excel sheet of everything in the song on screen at once, if you can hear what is already playing and you know what you want to add what is wrong with just knowing which track you are on, is it armed, which bar you are at?

Originally Posted by TonStrom ➡️

And handmade music does not have the problem which is among others the main reason for this thread:

If y o u chain patterns, then overlapping notes don't get cut. if you chain patterns on most s e q u e n c e r s , then overlapping notes d o g e t cut!

Originally Posted by keys88 ➡️

If the issue of notes getting cut off is critical then it would be best to use a laptop & DAW software to do the sequencing where this problem can be easily avoided

Originally Posted by TonStrom ➡️

@ Acid Mitch: i have a Pyramid and i know there are workarounds, DAWS, hardware sequencers, etc.

this does not answer the question: if synths like ELEKTRON or the Matrixbrute already allow sequencing and have the hardware to access at least 16 bars (or 256 in the Matrixbrute's case) WHY limit them to 4 bars.

Originally Posted by TonStrom ➡️

imagine you could record a 64 bar tone sequence (melody, chord progression, drone, whatever) without notes getting cut

Originally Posted by TonStrom ➡️

why build a sequencer in a synth?

or why build a sequencer with the number of bars that would suit me too into a synth?

built in sequencer yes, but only with the number of bars you regard as sufficient?

Why is it such a big problem for you to say: sure, why not extend the number of bars, so that other users with other ideas can use it too? Is that so hard for you?

Originally Posted by Acid Mitch ➡️

AYe but that's designed as a groove box to play back full productions.

Originally Posted by TonStrom ➡️

sure, and a lot of great musicians made use of long patterns. and I do not think to ask for more than 4 bars is "niche". It's rather that the imagination of so many "musicians" nowadays is limited to repeating patterns.

Originally Posted by TonStrom ➡️

This is the way YOU see them, but since you are the defender of creativity, you should allow other people to use their gear in other ways, which also means, they could ask for other updates than you might ask for.

i don' t force you to make 5 minute linear takes, so don't force me to limit myself to a few bars.

Originally Posted by cogsy ➡️

I legitimately do not understand this complaint. This guy is asking for a step sequencer with X number of bars? I feel like there are several easy solutions to this problem that he totally disregards.
1) Chain multiple patterns together. That's what they're there for
2) Buy a workstation/arranger with a full on sequencer. That's what they're there for.
3) Put on your big boy pants and record it live using your fingers. That's what they're there for.

The sequencer on most synths are there so they can have a Pink Floyd On The Run preset pattern, not for composing fugues and symphonies

Originally Posted by TonStrom ➡️

have you considered that there are people who can only afford one box and to ask for 16 bars instead of 4 bar is not " to want everything"?

your dealing with what has been said and what you make from it is rather questionable btw.

my request must be really hard for you. 16bars !! instead of 4!!! how can he dare !!!!

happy updating!

Originally Posted by psynaptik ➡️

only an idiot would buy something that didnt have the features they thought were necessary TO THEM.