#31

Don’t see why that’s odd. From what I’ve been reading it seems like it could be like an automation track in a DAW. I have no desire to edit it, but data can be transformed.

2 Likes
#32

You bet!

Imagine having the data used to play a soaring guitar solo, and then applying that to a crazy patch in your rack.

I mean that’s just one possibilities, and I bet it would have some truly wild and great results. But if you could edit the data to maybe take off some attack here, smooth out some data there, etc. then you could even repurpose that data and apply it in interesting ways else where.

Very exciting stuff!

3 Likes
#33

I don’t believe so, but there is a compromise form factor planned too…

Triggers and cv

#34

Many simple sequencers seems more flexible and performable than one beast.

The keyword in MPE is expression and while I can record and play it back, I don’t see an advantage of doing that over playing in real-time, where I can react to whatever is happening with my multiple interacting simple sequencers (who may be working out something algorithmic that features probability and therefore won’t be the same thing twice…)

There are so many simple sequencers out there. SQ-1 is very capable and affordable. Crazy8 is like 4 SQ-1s in one small box. Eloquencer was nice but I didn’t like how much HP it used up for what it does. SSP has a sequencer that isn’t too bad.

My approach is less about arranging patterns in some kind of song mode, nor is it about performing XOX style. It’s more of a generative idea. Those three paradigms for sequencing produce really different results and none of them even touch MPE. I think of MPE as a layer above…

4 Likes
#35

I’m of the same camp as others above, I prefer smaller sequencers that make a larger whole. Had my fare share of hardware sequencers until I realized I could do so much more using simpler, more straightforward means, to end up with a more complex result.

In Eurorack I don’t really see the point of powerful sequencers like the Eloquencer or the Nerdseq. Yes, they are nice if you want to perform linear music, but I’m unsure whether the form factor (everything ITB) is so much more important than the UI (DAW piano roll). If I wanted linear, non-performable, songs I’d go with the piano roll or a score even. I’ve had great results working with Sibelius. It does expression as well! I mean, why not use the nomenclature of the people who struggled with such things for years? Big discussion.

Anyway, I use my modular setups as sequencers compiled by very different aspects. Gives great options such as creativity, expression, non-linearity, and others. Seems limiting to focus on one particular “powerful” sequencer when you can do more with a few “weak” ones combined. Unless you want something very straight in which case the piano roll or a score are still the best options in my opinion.

2 Likes
#36

But why don’t you see the point? Why would you want to arbitrarily limit what your Eurorack can do? I don’t see modular synthesis as something that can only do one form of music or sound creation. If I did, I never would have bought a single modular thing.

Thanks for your thoughts!

#38

I don’t see it as limiting but more of a focusing. When things can do too much the UI/UX suffers in my opinion so I rather like things that do one thing and they do it well. The nice thing in eurorack is that you build bigger systems from a smaller components.
For example I had a Yamaha RM1X which has very powerful sequencer on paper (16 tracks at once, polymetrics etc.) but programming it was a pain and after you programmed the sequence I felt that it was rather hard to modify it on the fly.

3 Likes
#39

The point is exactly that these “powerful” black box sequencers can actually be more limiting. And he’s right. It all depends on what you want to do, and how.

3 Likes
#41

For me, the beauty of the modular is uh, the modularity. So the trend towards ‘all in one’ or ‘super’ modules defeats the point. Sequencing with non-traditional approaches using smaller elements and focusing more on how they’re connected/routed is the point for me.

Plus, I just love limitations. In my experience, the people who have the most options and possibilities usually produce the least.

9 Likes
#42

Funny you should say that. As mdoudoroff said above, it’s actually the powerful sequencers that feel more limiting in modular. The reason I use a 6U system as a sequencer is because it would be impossible for any standalone sequencer (let alone a module one) to pull off what I do when I patch things up.

I can repurpose the same super simple 8 step sequencer to be a transposer, or a remixer (if it sequences my switch) or a clock controller. We have macro controllers, sequencers, switches, gates, all kinds of weird things, to use and abuse.

I’ll give you an example of something I came up with only yesterday while daydreaming! I’m enjoying my ADDAC306 macro controller module a lot lately (full disclaimer: it was my concept so I’m biased) but yesterday I patched it up to a Ginko VCSQ mk1. Now I have a slider controller that gets its position transformed into triggers/gates that I can use elsewhere. So the bottom gate starts/stops the main clock in a case, while the top position retriggers another sequencer that acts as a bouncing ball. And I still get to use other tracks of the 306 as macro controls for other parameters. I can even automate the whole thing using a sequencer at the input. You simply cannot come up with stuff like that outside modular world!

Or, you get stuff like a pin matrix mixer to repurpose your signals/triggers/etc in real time. I get excited just thinking about these things.

3 Likes
#43

The very act of designing an instrument is to limit an infinite space of possibilities to a smaller portion which can then be explored deeply. That’s what allows you to make a connection with it and go beyond looking at it as a list of features.

The trick with modular systems is to select the set of limitations that leads you to interesting explorations. And one beautiful thing about modular systems is that you can change the limitations of your instruments at times. But if you never impose limitations, I do not think that it is possible to create any art at all. Then it merely becomes engineering.

7 Likes
#44

I would agree with this. It’s why I’ve limited the size of my rack significantly, and am trying to downsize it as I grow with it.

I might have just misunderstood. I think modular synths can do anything regular synths can. We don’t see it much, but I think modular synths can be used to make linear music or anything else. It is just that hasn’t been the focus of manufacturers, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t possible.

I was reading somewhere that quick changes in modular aren’t really possible, but I think that is because we don’t have sequencers for example that allow us to change several modules with CV rapidly.

Think about it like this: Modular synthesis is so great because there aren’t really any limitations other than the ones you accept (limited by time, money, etc.). It might not be popular to use modular synthesis for linear music, but those who have, have made some of the greatest stuff in my opinion.

#45

People do it all the time. It involves switches.

3 Likes
#46

Traditional Synths are modular synths hardwired.

2 Likes
#47

Precisely. Everything is possible for the modular synth, and the same can’t be said about traditional synths.

#48

I would still rather look around how to use sequencer to trigger other modules which would then trigger others and create complex sequencers that way. For example imagine that you have simple sequencer with only one track and one gate out. By sending this gate to function generator like rampage and the using its outputs like out a, b, min, max etc. to control other modules you could control a lot of various parameters in a interconnected matter using just one sequencer track without sacrificing the simplicity of sequencer UI.

2 Likes
#49

I think your best bet, is to get Percussa to build one for the SSP :slight_smile:

I think practically an MPE sequencer is going to be screen based, and it needs to be a big screen - if the SSP dedicated the whole screen to it, I think it might just about be big enough. if you need more cv out, then percussa could produce an expansion module for the SSP.

I think this could be programmed reasonably quickly on the SSP, and a sequencer is very low cpu, so its definitely got the power.

I think this is where the SSP can excel, implementing things that are probably not viable for standalone modules - due to cost, market size etc.

1 Like
#50

OK. Reaper records the entire MPE data stream, last I checked.

#51

Agree here. MPE is performance tech. One can certainly strip out the component data streams and do something else with them. Doesn’t seem much different than working with CV or such. Less creative, more derivitive.

1 Like
#52

What isn’t derivative with regard to synthesis technology or making music? We are all standing on the shoulders of giants.

I think we are just kind of going in circles here and just describing the same things differently.

Seems I got the answer with regard to the question and learned a few things. Thanks for all the input folks. Let me know if you got anything else!

1 Like