Why in the hell can't we see steps beyond 16 in Drum sequencer??

This forum is for discussing Rack Extensions. Devs are all welcome to show off their goods.
User avatar
United South
Posts: 151
Joined: 27 Dec 2017

08 May 2018

So basically this is a 16 step sequencer?? Am I missing something?? Just got home and played with it for a few minutes and noticed the steps go up to 128 but you can't see beyond 16,I have to have miss something I know PH can't be that stupid.

User avatar
Jagwah
Posts: 2549
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

08 May 2018

Incorrect info, deleted.
Last edited by Jagwah on 08 May 2018, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
esselfortium
Posts: 1456
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Contact:

08 May 2018

Reset Step isn’t a pattern length control, it’s for determining if and when polyrhythms should be forced to resync with each other. Ryan’s demo video does a good job of explaining how it works.
Sarah Mancuso
My music: Future Human

User avatar
Jagwah
Posts: 2549
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

08 May 2018


User avatar
United South
Posts: 151
Joined: 27 Dec 2017

08 May 2018

Jagwah wrote:
08 May 2018
Man thats alot of work just to get 64 steps if it wasn't for the repeat I probably wouldn't even use it.

User avatar
United South
Posts: 151
Joined: 27 Dec 2017

08 May 2018

esselfortium wrote:
08 May 2018
Reset Step isn’t a pattern length control, it’s for determining if and when polyrhythms should be forced to resync with each other. Ryan’s demo video does a good job of explaining how it works.
Ok

GRIFTY
Posts: 658
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

09 May 2018

pretty disappointed by this one myself. 16 steps is bs.

antic604

09 May 2018

Actually I have to agree... Why limit the steps to 16 AND limit the number of patterns to 8? Are we expected to chain several Drum Sequencers through CV mergers to get more? I'm doing - simple, by all means - psychedelic trance music and I've many more drum loop variations than just 8 not to mention some fills / transitions are longer than 1 bar.

So a step in good direction, but to small and to few of them ;)

EdGrip
Posts: 2343
Joined: 03 Jun 2016

09 May 2018

It does seem a slightly weird decision given that ReDrum and Matrix both go to 64 steps per pattern. PH could've put the other steps on tabbed screens like ReDrum, and set the default length to 16 steps so it's still super simple to get a beat going. Maybe they wanted to leave obvious room for Kompulsion?
EDIT: Also seems bothersome to have to go to another tab (via a drop-down menu! What!?) just to access the copy/paste, random and other functions. But that's me being nitpicky. Generally the GUI design language is nice and clear and clean like the other player devices.
Last edited by EdGrip on 09 May 2018, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
O1B
Posts: 2037
Joined: 26 Jan 2015

09 May 2018

wow! all that... dedicated to 16 steps.

it'd better be one awesome loop! .......

EdGrip
Posts: 2343
Joined: 03 Jun 2016

09 May 2018

On the other hand, probability and repeats are always visible and accessible - whereas, on Kompulsion, they're on a separate tab and (as far as I can tell) not represented on the notes on the main sequencer tab in the neat way they are by Drum Sequencer's probability squares and repeat divisions. That's maybe because Kompulsion has 32 steps to cram into a rack-width UI but Drum Sequencer only has 16, so it has space to be more deluxe in the per-note information it displays.
So ideally there would be a Drumpulsion Sequencer combining the excellent bits of both ;)

Can you stack one Drum Sequencer on top of another and just automate patterns to "off" to give you access to additional patterns if you want them?

User avatar
chimp_spanner
Posts: 2908
Joined: 06 Mar 2015

09 May 2018

16 steps is by no means rare, at least in the hardware world. And each lane can have its own playback speed, down to 0.25x. So that would give you 64 steps. Plus using repeat mode you could make a single step play 8ths or 16ths even at that speed. Add in playhead modes such as pendulum and random, plus probability based sequencing and you actually get patterns way longer than 16 steps. Technically infinitely long, if it's never the same. Then you add pattern chaining (where you can think of pattern 1 as 1-16 and 2 as 17-32) and there are easily ways to make this thing work beyond one bar loops. Of course if you want long, complex patterns with a tonne of variations...use the sequencer. You don't *have* to use the Drum Sequencer just because it's there. Or you don't have to use it exclusively. Just use it for continuously evolving top loops in combination with hand sequenced (or performed) drums. I get that it won't be for everyone, of course. Personally I've already got some really inspiring and creative results from it. And there's always scope for longer patterns with third party devices!

User avatar
chimp_spanner
Posts: 2908
Joined: 06 Mar 2015

09 May 2018

Oh also if you're using Kong, just stack another Drum Sequencer under your first one and load this patch!
Attachments
Kong 9-16.zip
(716 Bytes) Downloaded 78 times


User avatar
joeyluck
Moderator
Posts: 11029
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

09 May 2018

I would say that if you are thrown by it being "16 steps," you are likely missing the advantages and strengths of Drum Sequencer.

If you want to sequence your drums in a typical, straight forward fashion, your best best is always going to be Reason's Sequencer. Can't beat those number of steps.

With Drum Sequencer, you of course can create patterns that are greater than 16 steps with one pattern, when your patterns contain variations of speed, direction, repeats, and probability of each channel.

What's great about it, is it introduces a new way to approach sequencing your drums. And a way of discovering rhythms you might not have with a straight forward step sequencer. And you can have a great deal of variation all on one page in front of you, without having to flip pages.

And then there are 8 patterns to cycle through. And you can of course, always use more than one!
Several can be used at the same time to trigger more channels. Or they can be automated to operate in sequence. But I haven't had a need to do any of that yet.

For me, it's about discovering a cool pattern via it's strengths of it's features.

antic604

09 May 2018

joeyluck wrote:
09 May 2018
I would say that if you are thrown by it being "16 steps," you are likely missing the advantages and strengths of Drum Sequencer.

If you want to sequence your drums in a typical, straight forward fashion, your best best is always going to be Reason's Sequencer. Can't beat those number of steps.

With Drum Sequencer, you of course can create patterns that are greater than 16 steps with one pattern, when your patterns contain variations of speed, direction, repeats, and probability of each channel.

What's great about it, is it introduces a new way to approach sequencing your drums. And a way of discovering rhythms you might not have with a straight forward step sequencer. And you can have a great deal of variation all on one page in front of you, without having to flip pages.

And then there are 8 patterns to cycle through. And you can of course, always use more than one!
Several can be used at the same time to trigger more channels. Or they can be automated to operate in sequence. But I haven't had a need to do any of that yet.

For me, it's about discovering a cool pattern via it's strengths of it's features.
I'm pretty sure we don't miss anything. All that you've mentioned would be better with more number of steps and more available patterns. It's an arbitrary limitation born likely from trying to replicate hardware drum sequencers, which is adorable but quite unfortunate - keep the look & feel, take advantage of the fact we're running that on computers.

User avatar
joeyluck
Moderator
Posts: 11029
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

09 May 2018

antic604 wrote:
09 May 2018
joeyluck wrote:
09 May 2018
I would say that if you are thrown by it being "16 steps," you are likely missing the advantages and strengths of Drum Sequencer.

If you want to sequence your drums in a typical, straight forward fashion, your best best is always going to be Reason's Sequencer. Can't beat those number of steps.

With Drum Sequencer, you of course can create patterns that are greater than 16 steps with one pattern, when your patterns contain variations of speed, direction, repeats, and probability of each channel.

What's great about it, is it introduces a new way to approach sequencing your drums. And a way of discovering rhythms you might not have with a straight forward step sequencer. And you can have a great deal of variation all on one page in front of you, without having to flip pages.

And then there are 8 patterns to cycle through. And you can of course, always use more than one!
Several can be used at the same time to trigger more channels. Or they can be automated to operate in sequence. But I haven't had a need to do any of that yet.

For me, it's about discovering a cool pattern via it's strengths of it's features.
I'm pretty sure we don't miss anything. All that you've mentioned would be better with more number of steps and more available patterns. It's an arbitrary limitation born likely from trying to replicate hardware drum sequencers, which is adorable but quite unfortunate - keep the look & feel, take advantage of the fact we're running that on computers.
I wouldn't say arbitrary. I would say efficient and good design. Do you really want to flip through more pages? Why would you not just use Reason's sequencer if you need more than 128 steps steps (8 patterns of 16)?

Imagine you have a pattern with channels going in different directions. You really want to hunt down where pendulums are running at different speeds on different channels while flipping through pages? If you're using Drum Sequencer for it's strengths (having varying speeds, directions, probabilities...) there is no way you could ever see what was going on at any one time in a pattern greater than 16 steps. It just sounds like a nightmare to be honest.

Or you could use more than one, since we are using computers after all. I'm not against them adding more steps, I just don't see a use and I just see it creating problems. And if they were to do that, before you know it people will be complaining and pointing out those very flaws of it being hard to follow what is going on...and "can we get it to pop-out so we can see all 64 steps at once?"

I could see making the steps smaller in the UI to fit more, but I like it at it's current size.

Just my opinion.

WongoTheSane
Moderator
Posts: 1851
Joined: 14 Sep 2015
Location: Paris, France

09 May 2018

EdGrip wrote:
09 May 2018
Can you stack one Drum Sequencer on top of another and just automate patterns to "off" to give you access to additional patterns if you want them?
Yes, both the pattern change and the On/Off state are automatable, so in effect you can have as many patterns as you want by simply stacking devices.

User avatar
chimp_spanner
Posts: 2908
Joined: 06 Mar 2015

09 May 2018

joeyluck wrote:
09 May 2018
antic604 wrote:
09 May 2018


I'm pretty sure we don't miss anything. All that you've mentioned would be better with more number of steps and more available patterns. It's an arbitrary limitation born likely from trying to replicate hardware drum sequencers, which is adorable but quite unfortunate - keep the look & feel, take advantage of the fact we're running that on computers.
I wouldn't say arbitrary. I would say efficient and good design. Do you really want to flip through more pages? Why would you not just use Reason's sequencer if you need more than 128 steps steps (8 patterns of 16)?

Imagine you have a pattern with channels going in different directions. You really want to hunt down where pendulums are running at different speeds on different channels while flipping through pages? If you're using Drum Sequencer for it's strengths (having varying speeds, directions, probabilities...) there is no way you could ever see what was going on at any one time in a pattern greater than 16 steps. It just sounds like a nightmare to be honest.

Or you could use more than one, since we are using computers after all. I'm not against them adding more steps, I just don't see a use and I just see it creating problems. And if they were to do that, before you know it people will be complaining and pointing out those very flaws of it being hard to follow what is going on...and "can we get it to pop-out so we can see all 64 steps at once?"

Just my opinion.
Yeah for real. I always found step sequencers beyond 16 steps really tricky to navigate. Just makes it too hard to get an overview of your beat. Like I said, best off splitting a longer pattern between patterns 1 and 2 or 1 and 4 if you really need it, but I think if you're after that much hand programmed variation then maybe a step sequencer just isn't the way to go, full stop. Most Eurorack style sequencers will only do 16-32, or else they use probability, playhead speed and direction and repeats, like Drum Sequencer does, to emulate longer patterns and actually go beyond what you could do by hand anyway.

antic604

09 May 2018

Ok, I don't know what music you guys make, but in my simple psytrance tune I work ATM I've:
- 4/4 kick alone
- 4/4 kick with CH
- 4/4 kice with CH + OH
- 4/4 kick with CH + OH + SD
- 4x fills that's happening every 8-32 bars for each of the above, that's 8 already
- for all of the above a variant with crash at the start,
- at least 3-4 4-bar sequences for bigger transitions,
- some d'n'b type rhythms for bridges / breaks,

That's easily 20+ patterns, for a simple psytrance track...

Also, patterns can be in dropdown list (with "+" button to add new, so that you don't have to scroll a lot if you're using just 8) , sequencer steps can be packed tighter for 32 and simply scrolled (not split in pages) for higher counts.

And sure, I can stack several instances of Drum Sequencer or mix patterns with in-track sequences, but how is any of that easier? Or how does that help using different playback modes (forward, backward, pendulum, etc.) or step counts (polyrhytms) if I have to "carve in stone" part of the sequence by drawing in in-track?

I've no idea why you're defending it. Yes, it's an arbitrary decision and a weird one.

User avatar
Biolumin3sc3nt
Posts: 662
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

09 May 2018

joeyluck wrote:
09 May 2018
antic604 wrote:
09 May 2018


I'm pretty sure we don't miss anything. All that you've mentioned would be better with more number of steps and more available patterns. It's an arbitrary limitation born likely from trying to replicate hardware drum sequencers, which is adorable but quite unfortunate - keep the look & feel, take advantage of the fact we're running that on computers.
I wouldn't say arbitrary. I would say efficient and good design. Do you really want to flip through more pages? Why would you not just use Reason's sequencer if you need more than 128 steps steps (8 patterns of 16)?

Imagine you have a pattern with channels going in different directions. You really want to hunt down where pendulums are running at different speeds on different channels while flipping through pages? If you're using Drum Sequencer for it's strengths (having varying speeds, directions, probabilities...) there is no way you could ever see what was going on at any one time in a pattern greater than 16 steps. It just sounds like a nightmare to be honest.

Or you could use more than one, since we are using computers after all. I'm not against them adding more steps, I just don't see a use and I just see it creating problems. And if they were to do that, before you know it people will be complaining and pointing out those very flaws of it being hard to follow what is going on...and "can we get it to pop-out so we can see all 64 steps at once?"

I could see making the steps smaller in the UI to fit more, but I like it at it's current size.

Just my opinion.
Well said Joey!

Ermitage
Posts: 91
Joined: 21 Apr 2018

09 May 2018

Maybe they did it in an attempt to spare us from psytrance producers.

I'd be okay with that.

antic604

09 May 2018

Ermitage wrote:
09 May 2018
Maybe they did it in an attempt to spare us from psytrance producers.

I'd be okay with that.
Quality contribution. Congrats! :thumbs_down:

User avatar
guitfnky
Posts: 4408
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

09 May 2018

antic604 wrote:
09 May 2018
Ok, I don't know what music you guys make, but in my simple psytrance tune I work ATM I've:
- 4/4 kick alone
- 4/4 kick with CH
- 4/4 kice with CH + OH
- 4/4 kick with CH + OH + SD
- 4x fills that's happening every 8-32 bars for each of the above, that's 8 already
- for all of the above a variant with crash at the start,
- at least 3-4 4-bar sequences for bigger transitions,
- some d'n'b type rhythms for bridges / breaks,

That's easily 20+ patterns, for a simple psytrance track...

Also, patterns can be in dropdown list (with "+" button to add new, so that you don't have to scroll a lot if you're using just 8) , sequencer steps can be packed tighter for 32 and simply scrolled (not split in pages) for higher counts.

And sure, I can stack several instances of Drum Sequencer or mix patterns with in-track sequences, but how is any of that easier? Or how does that help using different playback modes (forward, backward, pendulum, etc.) or step counts (polyrhytms) if I have to "carve in stone" part of the sequence by drawing in in-track?

I've no idea why you're defending it. Yes, it's an arbitrary decision and a weird one.
can't you just export the MIDI tracks to the sequencer, extract all to individual notes, and mute the lanes you don't want in the appropriate sections? sounds like 99% of what you're trying to do would be masterfully handled with Blocks.

but yeah, 16 is definitely not arbitrary. thirteen would be arbitrary. :lol:
I write good music for good people

https://slowrobot.bandcamp.com/

jimmyklane
Posts: 740
Joined: 16 Apr 2018

09 May 2018

antic604 wrote:
09 May 2018
Ok, I don't know what music you guys make, but in my simple psytrance tune I work ATM I've:
- 4/4 kick alone
- 4/4 kick with CH
- 4/4 kice with CH + OH
- 4/4 kick with CH + OH + SD
- 4x fills that's happening every 8-32 bars for each of the above, that's 8 already
- for all of the above a variant with crash at the start,
- at least 3-4 4-bar sequences for bigger transitions,
- some d'n'b type rhythms for bridges / breaks,

That's easily 20+ patterns, for a simple psytrance track...

Also, patterns can be in dropdown list (with "+" button to add new, so that you don't have to scroll a lot if you're using just 8) , sequencer steps can be packed tighter for 32 and simply scrolled (not split in pages) for higher counts.

And sure, I can stack several instances of Drum Sequencer or mix patterns with in-track sequences, but how is any of that easier? Or how does that help using different playback modes (forward, backward, pendulum, etc.) or step counts (polyrhytms) if I have to "carve in stone" part of the sequence by drawing in in-track?

I've no idea why you're defending it. Yes, it's an arbitrary decision and a weird one.
Now that we have VST, I would suggest Maschine for unlimited patterns per track and 8 tracks. All of my drum machines end up in there eventually, even if only as triggered phrases.

Back on topic: I feel like Reason grabbed a page from Ableton’s book here with the probability and ratchets.
and to be honest, for things that have broken for me for a long time (like ANY ReGroove amount chopping up my sequence instead of swinging it) now are possible again, and it’s cool that they gave it to us in the first place. The idea of chaining multiple players has never been something I’ve explored, but with the drum sequencer I was able to create some very interesting ambient sounds based on probability in DS, S&C, and some effects. So, even though this is not the end-all-be-all of all things drum sequencing, it IS a very efficient tool for getting creative parts down into a track and then you can tweak them by hand with far less work than drawing everything in by hand in the first place
DAW: Reason 12

SAMPLERS: Akai MPC 2000, E-mu SP1200, E-Mu e5000Ultra, Ensoniq EPS 16+, Akai S950, Maschine

SYNTHS: Mostly classic Polysynths and more modern Monosynths. All are mostly food for my samplers!

www.soundcloud.com/jimmyklane

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests