Numerology Store    Download  Video    Forum


Go Back   Five12.net -- Online Forum for the Numerology Music Sequencer > Numerology > Feature Requests

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 06-10-2010, 12:43 PM
droolmaster0 droolmaster0 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 26
Default

Well, this is a feature request sub forum, so I figured that the request was appropriate.

I simply don't see how a module with notes, velocity, duration, and gate length each having separate sequence lengths is confusing, or represents too many features - the module could be simpler overall than some of the others.

But if you're not at all interested in doing this, then I guess I'll have to live with it. To me it seems like an absolute no brainer if you by default always set up parameters with different lengths to start.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-10-2010, 12:45 PM
droolmaster0 droolmaster0 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 26
Default

yet another thought - I don't see anything conceptually tying the sequence length of these other parameters to the note sequence length. therefore it is not somehow 'non-modular' to implement this, it is making a more general sequencing module with the same components.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-24-2010, 07:57 PM
RHR RHR is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by droolmaster0 View Post
Well, this is a feature request sub forum, so I figured that the request was appropriate.

I simply don't see how a module with notes, velocity, duration, and gate length each having separate sequence lengths is confusing, or represents too many features - the module could be simpler overall than some of the others.

But if you're not at all interested in doing this, then I guess I'll have to live with it. To me it seems like an absolute no brainer if you by default always set up parameters with different lengths to start.

Neither do I see such a request as confusing.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-25-2010, 06:27 AM
Sjoerd Sjoerd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 263
Default

With all due respect, while I sympathize and agree with the point to some extent (I can also think of many "modules" that I'd like to see ), I also see the FR as failing to fully grasp the power of modularity. Which we probably all do to some extent, since the power of modularity is infinite (unfortunately, our system resources aren't... ).

What would really be the way forward here imho is more user configurability of the GUI elements of Numerology, in a modular manner to stay true to Numerology's architectural paradigm. For example, first you would set up the type of thing you describe using multiple modules (as we already can), but then you would also be able to create some customized set of GUI controls that suit your particular needs, after which you could then hide the modules which you don't need for control via the GUI, so in the end, it would look like a single module to the user.

I'm almost sure Jim is already dreaming and planning this type of stuff, if not building and testing, but it will probably take quite a lot of work before we can use it. However, it will in the end also be way more useful than one-off specialized solutions.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-25-2010, 06:39 AM
Per Boysen's Avatar
Per Boysen Per Boysen is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sjoerd View Post
/// What would really be the way forward here imho is more user configurability of the GUI elements of Numerology, in a modular manner to stay true to Numerology's architectural paradigm. ///
+1! Can't agree more with this attitude!
__________________
Best wishes
Per Boysen
perboysen.com
soundcloud.com/pboy
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-25-2010, 11:32 AM
rexlapin rexlapin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 149
Default

Also agreed! Having a powerful (and stable) underlying architecture with
a flexible user interface to facilitate all the various ways we might want
to interact with Numerology would be the best of both worlds. :-)
Cheers,
Scott
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-25-2010, 06:01 PM
RHR RHR is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sjoerd View Post
With all due respect, while I sympathize and agree with the point to some extent (I can also think of many "modules" that I'd like to see ), I also see the FR as failing to fully grasp the power of modularity. Which we probably all do to some extent, since the power of modularity is infinite (unfortunately, our system resources aren't... ).

What would really be the way forward here imho is more user configurability of the GUI elements of Numerology, in a modular manner to stay true to Numerology's architectural paradigm. For example, first you would set up the type of thing you describe using multiple modules (as we already can), but then you would also be able to create some customized set of GUI controls that suit your particular needs, after which you could then hide the modules which you don't need for control via the GUI, so in the end, it would look like a single module to the user.

I'm almost sure Jim is already dreaming and planning this type of stuff, if not building and testing, but it will probably take quite a lot of work before we can use it. However, it will in the end also be way more useful than one-off specialized solutions.

Maybe I have misunderstood the thread starter

Isnt he requesting a module that represents a more traditional linear style sequencer that makes it easy to input some chords or the basic stuff you would do in any Daw sequencer?

If that is so I personally dont see the problem with such a request.

In regards my perception of modular sequencing..hmmmm while way back in the 80's I didnt have modular synths I did have an entire set up of analog synths that required sequencing-syncing via CV gate, Dyn sync, FSK etc and quite often just hitting start on two machines at the same time and hoping for the best But they were perceived as more modern than modular synths because it made it easier to construct chords and songs on them. I have little experience with those modular synths from the late 70's but I know or did know a few people who were glad to see the back of them and welcomed the analog synths of the 80-'s that didnt require a quagmire of connections to play one chords for a specific length of time. But yeas of course there's a certain nostalgia for that style of programming but if you had the real setups that reqyuired a room full of these things it wasnt easy to get a song out of them. Ask Vince Clarke

Numerology imho doesn't just have try and re-create the past. Why do that when it can take from the past and also inject modern style sequencing. But this is Jims software and its up to him what he does with it and all the power to him.

From my selfish point of view Ive been using Daws now or ten years. While I like the modular style sequencer I also like what Ive been doing for the past ten years. It wouldnt be then end of the world or Numerology if one of the modules emulated a traditional style linear daw style sequencer. best of all worlds me thinks.

Each to their own
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-26-2010, 04:07 PM
jim jim is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 4,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RHR View Post
Maybe I have misunderstood the thread starter

Isnt he requesting a module that represents a more traditional linear style sequencer that makes it easy to input some chords or the basic stuff you would do in any Daw sequencer?
The request is to be able to individually control the length of each 'sub sequence' in the MonoNote (Pitch, Gate, Velocity, etc). That functionality actually came before the MonoNote and is covered through the use of individual CV sequencers --- for the most part, there are a few goodies in the MonoNote that would be hard to duplicated individually. My feeling (echoed by Sjoerd's post yesterday) is that this is really a request for a better way to setup such a system and to have a cleaner UI for it. The StackLibrary covers the first half of that equation: making it easy to setup and re-use a discrete sequencing setup. The second half, making a more compact UI, will have to wait a bit longer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RHR View Post
From my selfish point of view Ive been using Daws now or ten years. While I like the modular style sequencer I also like what Ive been doing for the past ten years. It wouldnt be then end of the world or Numerology if one of the modules emulated a traditional style linear daw style sequencer. best of all worlds me thinks.
I think PianoRoll sequencers are just great, and I have lots of ideas of how one could be integrated into Numerology in a natural and interesting way, but other features have priority right now.

Cheers,
Jim
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-27-2010, 05:33 AM
circuit circuit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 42
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jim View Post
I think PianoRoll sequencers are just great, and I have lots of ideas of how one could be integrated into Numerology in a natural and interesting way, but other features have priority right now.
I can't wait to see what you come up with there Jim. Don't get me wrong, I love Numerology because everything it does - to me - is near perfect. But I would love to be able to play some sort of riff or melody line and record it into Numerology.

Sure I can fire up another sequencer and do that, but I prefer to run only one sequencer at a time. Put a pianoroll sequencer into N3 Pro and I would upgrade in a heartbeat!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-28-2010, 07:42 AM
doctorvague doctorvague is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 46
Default

To me it would be visually confusing to have different lengths in one sequencer. You'd have to click on some parameter (I guess) to know where each sub-sequence was and what you're looking at could be misleading if you are on the wrong parameter. You'd end up with what amounts to various buried sub-modes of things you're not able to see until you select the right one. Using separate gate, pitch etc sequencers makes more sense because you can see everything at once and what step each one is currently on.

Droolmaster - you being a modular guy I'm surprised you're not drawn to the more modular approach. It just takes a few seconds to drag a seq's into a stack, then you have complete control over all of them and they are separately modulate-able too. Lots of advantages to this approach. It's how I do it 75% of the time vs using a Mononote which I find nice for certain things, but mostly limiting. Using separate ones you can switch only one from 1/8 to 1/16 notes in a particular preset for one example. Lots more mix-and-match options having them separate. When you think about stuff like separately modulating each seq's start and end points the advantage really becomes apparent.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.