The other day I asked my brother (a long-time electronic musician and producer) whether there are any sequencers that are not based on the 4/4 time signature or multiples of 4. He gave an emphatic and disappointed No. I couldn’t really disagree with him. But is he correct?
For clarification, I am not asking how to create non-4/4 times on Elektron sequencers, and the like. I know how to do that, however awkward it may be.
Are you referring to Step Sequencers?
Indeed, plenty of 5 step, and odd mumber step sequencers available in modular land.
4/4 is a time signature, not a sequencer type.
Just because a sequencer has steps divisible by 4, or 4 ‘bars’ doesnt mean you have to use that equation.
Cirklon, MPC and other sequencers, as I understand it, can be what ever you want.
So no, he is not correct.
also, as a matter of music theory, there are almost no time signatures that aren’t divisible by 2 or 4 (theoretically there is an x/3 signature but i don’t recall seeing it in action). so little point musically to accommodating irregular time signatures in a sequencer
Yes, I understand that 4/4 is a time signature, and I understand you don’t have to use 4 bar equations in many sequencers, but even the Cirklon has pads in multiples of 4. I am asking more about way of looking at music that is not based in a 4 beat measure.
Well I’d support the idea that that is in the mind of the user. Not the tool itself.
Korg electribe are great for 3/4, but have 16 buttons along the bottom.
And as mentioned, in modular land, all kinds of weird options available.
Non linear sequencers are another option too (Akai MPC, Abelton, Tracker etc)
True enough. I see the reason why sequencer-makers adopt the approach they do. Maybe my question really concerns sequencers that don’t use a time-signature model at all.
Most workstation sequencers (Yamaha, Roland, Korg) allow you to set different time signatures.
That could certainly work, but it too uses a multiple of 4. Why isn’t it Ornament-7? 
All told, I guess my question is more about a mindset–a general approach to music.
Yeah, I realize this. My brother does too. I should have clarified my question more.
Part of the problem is that digital things are based on binary signaling, and dealing with powers of two is always easier with binary systems. So products tend to be designed around powers of two. It is just easier to build a thing that has four or eight steps because many of your components come in 4x or 8x packages and your microcontroller prefers to deal in 8-bit aligned data structures.
Yeah, I guess so. Ableton, for instance, does not seem to have a “preference” for any one time signature over another, or even a time signature at all. But I wouldn’t call it step sequencer, though its piano roll can be treated that way.
Ok, this diagnosis makes sense to me. There are practical, conventional pressures, and not just those of a musical, or aesthetic, variety.
I should get more familiar with modular land! Thanks.
Before you go down that more-expensive-than-racing-sailboats-as-a-hobby route, take a look at Numerology, if you’ve got a mac.
(source: former and hopefully future sailboat racer here. But then my Elektrons are also worth more than my old boat so 
)
Maybe I will. Numerology seems the kind of thing I want to try. However, at the moment, I am looking for expressive and interesting ways to trigger my Vermona DRM1 MkIV without Midi. Analogue Solutions Europa, Beatstep Pro, and the Korg SQ-64 would all work, given that they have a number of analog triggers, but all seem a bit traditional.
Wait, I now see that Numerology can be employed in CV/modular systems. Hmm.
Patterning 2 for IOS facilitates non-4 based time signature with its circular look. A UI designed around a circle can accommodate any time signature more easily than a grid based one.
Poly 2 also uses the circle concept.
I think there are some other sequencers that use the circle concept
Thanks. Patterning is closer to what I’m looking for, but unfortunately, I’ve found Patterning to be glitchy controlling my Vermona DRM. Assigning instruments via midi is not consistent. I won’t give up on it yet, but I am afraid to use in a live setting.
It is also somewhat based on the 16 step module. When a pattern goes over 16 steps it goes to another circle, which then makes the rotate function not work the same as it does when there is just one circle. If that makes any sense.
Haven’t tried Poly 2. It could be just the ticket.
For hardware sequencers that aren’t pre-grouped to multiples of 4, the Buchla 245 uses 5 steps. The recent TipTop reissue can be found here: https://tiptopaudio.com/manuals/Buchla_&_Tiptop_Audio_245t.pdf
Quick edit: here’s a view of the original ModularSynthesis - Buchla 245 Sequential Voltage Source
Double edit: Forgot to mention that, in the spirit of your question, the larger Buchla 246 is identical except it has, you guessed it, 16 steps: fluxmonkey - xprmntl snd - Historic Buchla
And the predecessor Model 123 is 8 steps: fluxmonkey - xprmntl snd - Historic Buchla
Really seems like the 245 is an enormous outlier in sequencer history.
