Step Sequencer Module

I didn’t realize that was being considered, and it’s a good thing to be able to do quickly.

However, I’m not sure about everyone else, but personally I don’t get much utility out of being able to edit 4 consecutive values with four consecutive knobs, and paging between two groups of four cells is a bit awkward.

This is a new thought, so bear with me… :bear:

What about a slight paradigm shift so that there’s only a SINGLE* active cell whose value is changed with the first knob, which would function as proposed above.

The second knob: allows one to scroll left and right to change the active cell, and pushing the second knob allows one to toggle the gate function.

Third knob: could be used to expand the active cell to encompass to MULTIPE* consecutive cells. Pushing the third knob could either (I’m not sure which is preferable) a) cycle through multiples of cells (2/4/8/16/etc), b) simply jump back to having a SINGLE active cell, or c) scale values as the first knob does.

Fourth Knob (I’m just spitballing on this one): pushing selects active group of cells for moving. Rotating knob shifts selected cells left or right, pushing knob again drops selection. Alternatively, rotating knob could just move the active group (I’d worry about accidents), and pushing the knob while rotating could shift and wraparound values in current selection.

Again, it’s a new idea, and I’m not sure how clear I’m articulating it…
Does the above make sense (both conceptually and practically)?

What does everyone else think?

I haven’t thought about this too hard yet but I agree that giving different knobs different functions seems more useful.

1 Like

maybe this (knob behaviour) could be incorporated in a skin loader/change?

This approach basically simulates a mouse, and you lose the ability to have instant access to individual steps using multiple encoders/buttons. So it is a bad idea IMHO. I do understand that the up/down switching between the two encoder assignments might be confusing or inefficient so I propose we just keep it at 4 editable steps using 4 encoders per page and you browse pages using cursor keys left/right. And I remove the up/down switching.

3 Likes

I think we disagree greatly about the utility of being able to edit consecutive steps with consecutive knobs with such a small number of knobs. :frowning:

It feels like it slows down the process of inputting sequences, and requires two hands and a lot of movement between hands and buttons. If I’m going to use two hands for a lot of repetitive (up to 128 consecutively) actions, I’d prefer not having to rely on buttons as the only method of getting certain things done.

From a pedantic UX perspective, I’m sure that the existing method and what I suggested both violate a lot of best practices, but I think what I suggested offers better ergonomics (physically and semantically). With that said, this whole thing is likely very subjective, but the bouts of RSI that I’ve dealt with give me the illusion of piety. :wink:

I know there aren’t a lot of us on here, but I’d love to see opinions and alternatives from the rest of the users. I don’t think the solution I proposed is the end all, be all, but it attempts to solve problem that might or might not just be personal thing for me.

C’mon folks, I’m shocked to see a bunch of modular users on a forum who don’t have strong opinions about these things!!! :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

2 Likes

Hehe, I have plenty of strong opinions, but I move a bit slowly and tend to focus on one thing at a time. I want to revise my network mockups based on previous feedback before I move on. As another modular manufacturer likes to say, “depth first”.

1 Like

My fear of concrete poured around something before opining strongly has turned my focus from a single stream to a fine mist…

Also, kudos on the network mock-ups. You might inspire me to fall into the photoshop rabbit hole that awaits…

1 Like

I’ve been focusing on the modules that I wanted the SSP for in the first place and will eventually spend time with them all but unfortunately I have a day job and a family so I try to find time around these to dive into the Percussa. I think it’s awesome that so many people are commenting on how to improve the operation of the module (and Bert & Celine being so receptive to it…) based on the units that interest them the most, obviously there are people who are pushing the step sequencer harder than I am at the moment.
I have three Eurorack sequencers and two of them have a single data knob for CV (note) values and 8-16 buttons for steps/gates while the other has 16 sliders. They both have their plus and minuses IMHO but if I had to chose right now I’d prefer the single row of encoders (4) per step based on what I’m used to now. Hopefully I can dive into the step sequencer this weekend to actually get some ‘boots on the ground’ experience with it and report back.

1 Like

Thank you! Helps to know that it might just be me. If that’s the case there’s always the SDK. :wink:

I’ve had the unit setup on my desk, away from the rack to encourage quick testing breaks during work.

Primary motivator was recording, the 8in/8out, and SDK – So I’ve had a minute to check out the secondary motivators while I wait for the update. Very promising…

( I’m also thrilled that it looks like the buffer limitations will be going away. )

Now if only I could find a full day to devote to MPE.

1 Like

so i can figure out what gate and L1 & L2 are, but what is the output in the STE module for S (step?)

what does it & how can i control it?

The S output is just the step value output, without taking into account the gates that are on or off. It just continuously outputs the current step value.

1 Like

1 Well for having changed the Stlen never noticed a difference of behavior
2 StLs don’t get it which different behavior to expect
3 you externaly could change in almost audiorate between these 64 patterns ??

this changes the length of the gate that is output, you are right that in some cases the length of the gate doesn’t matter, it depends on what you do with the gate. For example if you use it to trigger the ENV module it does matter, if the ENV module is not looping, and HOLD is on. The length of the gate will determine how much time elapses before the envelope goes into the release stage.

This changes the number of steps of the step values. For example if it is 128, then there are 128 voltage levels you can choose from when you edit the step values. So you can finetune the resolution of the step values this way, before you edit them.

The step sequencer only has 3 modulation inputs right now: tempo, clock input, and the step duration. There is no input yet to change the pattern number or the length of the sequence, although it’s a good idea to have these inputs and I’ll add them at some point. You are right that audio rate modulations would be possible.

1 Like

I am trying to sync the SSP’s step sequencer to and external clock, I have tried clock output at x4 from Pamela’s New Workout (via INP module) as well as MIDI clock out from my Vector sequencer (via MIDI module), and STE will not correctly sync with either one. It sees the clock, just wont correctly sync, I have tried playing with DivF to try to match it up but that is fruitless as every time I change the tempo on the external modules it throws the timing off. Anyone got any advice? Thank you in advance :slight_smile:

Currently, Step Sequencer Module seems to have an issue with MIDI sync. (Pls, see below topic.)

About clock of Pamela’s New Workout via input module, put clock signal into STE’s clock-in.

" 1. You need to disable “ IntClk ” of the step sequencer. Otherwise you’ll be using the internal clock of the step sequencer ."

I don’t have the percussa in front of me at the moment but I had similar troubles till I tried this. Admittedly I haven’t used the step sequencer again since the latest firmware update though.

Thank you for the replies, I have disabled the IntClk I have tried input of Pam’s to STE Clock, and it sees the clock, but it does not sync correctly. I am thinking it might be related to PPQN, but it apperas that there is no adjustment for PPQN on SSP, all my other modules run on 24PPQN so I’d prefer to no adjust Pam’s :slight_smile:

Sucks about the MIDI sync not working correctly right now, as I’d prefer to get clock through MIDI over USB from the Vector. Hopefully it will get fixed in later firmware.

I’ll play with this when I get home tonight. Hopefully, we can find a solution since I was hoping to start playing with the step sequencer here soon too.

DivF is basically PPQN but expressed in a different way. its the division factor of the DivIn input
(bare in mind STE, does not know anything about midi, its just seeing pulses from an input on divin)

perhaps what we should be clear on , is the difference between the Clock In, and DivIn
(this is detailed in this post, possibly elsewhere too :slight_smile: )

CLOCK is used to drive STE forwards, its used when you do not want the STE to be tempo based. i.e more like a traditional sequencer.

DivIn is used when you want to use an internal clock, who’s tempo is derived from an external source (usually midi, but not always), DivF is used to divide that internal clock.

the ‘problem’ with using DivIn (as detailed in the above post) its its always going to be estimating a tempo, as when used with something like midi is going to be smoothing out the inherent jitter.
(you can see it doing this if you watch the tempo as you change tempo externally)

as I mentioned in above thread, it also seems to be also over-estimating slightly, so is drifting.
but I need to do some solid tests to check out exactly whats doing on.

anyway… I posted in the above post, some suggestions on how best to get a good sync.
if your using PNW, then I think currently the easist way is to set the clock division you want to drive at in PNW (and begin/reset) , fed into clock… after all PNW primary function is as an accurate clock source :slight_smile:

Thank you, that helped a lot. I got it working now. I appreciate your help :slight_smile:

1 Like