Any Non-4/4 Sequencers?

GovernorSilver · 2022-12-16T01:09:13.430Z

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

sinktothesea · 2022-12-16T01:11:42.857Z

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.

trickyflemming · 2022-12-16T01:12:11.526Z

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.

GovernorSilver · 2022-12-16T01:13:15.112Z

I’m just saying circular sequencers might be something worth searching for. Just because one doesn’t work for you doesn’t mean they’re all bound to fail.

sinktothesea · 2022-12-16T01:17:30.025Z

Sorry about that. I hear you. I agree that the circle concept is promising!

GovernorSilver · 2022-12-16T01:22:06.856Z

I edited my post after realizing it was a little on the harsh side.

Listening to a YT vid right now in which an MC-707 owner is doing a 10-beat rhythm. I’ve worked with mine enough to know that setting a clip length to a multiple of 10 is no big deal, but some people hate the sequencer UI.

Microtribe · 2022-12-16T01:25:12.337Z

A mutable instruments Marbles (or clone) and some kind of dual function generator ( Befaco Rampage) will give endless amazing possibilities. Random/repeatable gate and triggers galore.

Also… think inside the box within a box. Octatraks midi arp can be LFO modulated…

Up to 8 arpegiators, with 3 LFOs each. Each with independant step lengths. I mean fuck, if you can’t get away from the number four with that…

chapelierfou · 2022-12-16T05:56:57.532Z

In Eurorack, I use Teletype. In my opinion it’s the most neutral device possible. It’s not necessarily a sequencer btw.

thetechnobear · 2022-12-16T14:37:13.426Z

I think the Squarp Pyramid is a good non-4/4 sequencer.

it’s supports both polymeter and polyrythm and each track can have different time signatures.
for me, its probably the Pyramid’s USP.
(interestingly it was dropped from the Hapax, as most users found it too confusing for everyday use… a good demonstration of why non-4/4 is less common I think)

sure, its still has 16 pads, but thats really just arbitrary… you can use 7 or 23
(in the same way humans tend to default to 10 , due to fingers, hardware seq go for 16)

In the Eurorack world, I think the Frap Tools USTA is very interesting…
why? because it does away with the concept of a STEP = a fixed time unit.
so you can have five steps, were the timing is 1, 2, 1, 3, 4
(its quite interesting to read the USTA manual , and how this approach maps to musical notation!)

again, its got 16 hardware encoders, but again only convention, you can have 5 or 17 steps…

overall with hardware, there you have to choose a number of steps/pads/encoders…
and why not use 16? its not like 10, or 17 is any better…
(ok, @chapelierfou teletype is hardware… but it doesn’t have a UI so doesn’t count )

of course, on something like an iPad/VST, with only a virtual interface, that constraint is not there… but neither is the hands-on interaction

EDIT:
thinking about teletype, there are a few ‘hardware hybrids’ that make good sequencers, that are not bound by 4/4 conventions.
Monome Norms would be a good example in the standalone world.
and in the Eurorack world, I use the Percussa SSP, but you can also consider the ER301 or O&C.

all of these have the advantages of creative software , not bound by hardware controls/conventions, and give you a hardware solution, so something dedicated to task particularly with IO.
though by definition, also suffer the not quite-so hands on experience of software.

(*) there are many other interesting Eurorack sequencers… arguably eurorack is home of most creative sequencing, partly because you can play so freely with timing (as you can mess with clocks)

of course, things like VCVRack also have this same dynamic nature, so if you want creative non 4/4 sequencing in software, vcv is hard to beat!

dokev · 2022-12-16T14:56:26.048Z

The 8 corresponds to the number of voices on the Lyra-8, which it’s designed to sequence, not to the number of steps. It can also sequence the Pulsar-23, which has 4 voices, but this came later. The original design was mostly about creating something through which each of the Lyra-8’s voices COULD be triggered by something external (it has a very unusual/unique interface). Ornament-8 is completely free in how you patch together a chain of triggers in a sequence, and nothing in its interface leads you to patch a sequence that is a multiple of 4.

RE: your more general question, this is arguably the main domain of modular. I imagine most XOX style sequencers use multiples of four because it’s the dominant measure and you can easily use them for other time signatures by changing sequencer length.

monquixote · 2022-12-16T15:07:00.090Z

The Polyend Tracker lets you make a sequence any number of steps so you can basically do whatever you want.

hellnegative · 2022-12-16T15:21:24.671Z

I don’t know of any sequencers off the top of my head which are designed ouside of the 4/4 time signature.

However, every modern sequencer I can think of allows you to modify the time signature in one way or another. IF you are looking for differential sequencing (polyrhythm), that’s available in most odern sequencers as well.

whim · 2022-12-16T15:34:21.183Z

sinktothesea:

any sequencers that are not based on the 4/4 time signature or multiples of 4

Maybe:

a good DAW
human/animal brain (insects, birds…)
mechanical solutions/repurposed machines (clock, turntable, laundry machine, other appliances…)

trickyflemming:

Buchla 245 uses 5 steps

(So does the the sequencer of the 208/Music Easel, although I don’t know if that’s considered distinct)

Lizard-of-Oz · 2022-12-16T15:41:03.519Z

sinktothesea:

Maybe my question really concerns sequencers that don’t use a time-signature model at all.

Any stepsequencer that allows for setting an arbitrary number of steps in a sequence does not enforce a “time-signature model” on the user. The controls are still typically rows of 4, 8 or 16 buttons or knobs, but any number of controls in a row is more convenient for some, and less convenient for other time-signatures.

Many circular sequencers (like MFOS, AMB or Future Retro Orb Sequencer still have 16 steps, so that won’t be much different.

What might help visualize some of the more obscure time signatures in a better way is a matrix of several rows like on the Nemo or Octopus. Here you can chain tracks and skip steps, that gives you 4 (or 9 in the case of the Octopus) vertically aligned bars of 1-16 steps. I am not aware of any other sequencer that can do that.

+1 for the Squarp Pyramid, it’s a clever little machine for the price, easy to master and full of inspiration.

Magicmix · 2022-12-16T16:27:47.586Z

0-ctrl. Nuff said.

BobsMoog · 2022-12-16T16:28:59.614Z

Buchla Music Easel has 1,2,3,4,5 steps not rooted to any. I believe most numbers are divisible with these 5 numbers if you want unusual time signatures.

hyperstationjr · 2022-12-16T16:47:51.777Z

I’ve been using the Torso T1 sequencer recently. Technically it is defaulted to 16 steps and 4 bars, however, the step count can be anything from 1-64 steps per track, with 1-16 bars (called cycles) per, and the clock division can be anything from 1/1 to 1/64 and 1/3 to 1/48. You can change the clock division per step or per bar, and each bar can be any number of steps you’d like.

I guess the only issue I have is with so many possibilities and options, I have a hard time getting out of standard 4/4-feeling stuff, and because everything can be almost anything, there are times where it feels too chaotic.

That said, I’ve had it for a very short amount of time and it’s very powerful.

sinktothesea · 2022-12-16T16:57:36.916Z

I don’t think I’ve come across the Octopus before. Beautiful.

H1 · 2022-12-16T17:15:35.977Z

If you’re into software, give the demo of Nodal a go. It’s mostly time signature agnostic.

Lizard-of-Oz · 2022-12-16T17:22:11.353Z

sinktothesea:

I don’t think I’ve come across the Octopus before. Beautiful.

Yes. But the machine is limited by some arbitrary design choices, and handbook is directly from hell, even more the one for the Nemo, that is the worst manual for any instrument I have ever seen.

I haven’t worked much with the Octopus, because I never owned one, but I’ve had a Nemo for quite some time, and while these machines do some things quite well, they are pretty limited by today’s standards (e.g. there’s only a single MIDI CC per track, but those can’t be modulated). The fact that you are pretty much on your own with a shitty manual, the odd way of naming some things (“hyperstep”, FFS) and the lack of a display (which forces you to remember so many things or constantly have the manual ready) makes for unnecessarily slow learning.

Some things are limited in an totally arbitrary way, and things that one thinks should work just don’t due to a weird way of implementing things (like you can’t transpose a track with another track, you can just transpose a step that starts at the exact same time the step in the transposing track starts, because any inter-track modulations are sent exactly on the beat and won’t affect shuffled steps, even if source step is shuffled, too). If you are into generative things that only affect pitch, velocity and note start/length, then it’s maybe worth a shot.

The octopus is easier to learn, because the UI is less crammed (more buttons mean single-function controls, and you can see and change all parameters of a page, track or step at the same time), but it shares the exact same limitations. Which is sad, because both could have been really great machines. Ah, well…