Let’s say I want to have trig 5-8 play 50% of the time. If I set all trig conditions to 50% I’ve found that they are all random i.e. they won’t all trigger at the same time 50% of the time. I want to set condition so either all 4 play or none of them play. Reading manual I figured I should set 5 to 50% and then set 6-8 to either pre or nei. I’ve tried playing around with that but it still seems inconsistent like trig 5 will play and 8 will play but 6-7 won’t.
Should I be using pre or nei for 6-8 in this situation or should I be doing something else?
It is possible that the PRE conditions are only evaluated for the first step after the 50% trig…? NEI evaluates whats going on in adjacent tracks, not trigs…
Can you use a retrigged trig as trig 5, set to 50% and with a suitable rate and lenght for it to create sounds 6-8 ?
I guess that is another option. I have been playing around with retrig a lot to create glitching and triplets. I’ve only had my DT for about a month and it’s a very new workflow for me so still experimenting and learning the ins and outs
Thanks. That was super helpful. The main thing I figured out is that I should be using a:b most of the time instead of %. But he breaks everything down well
Does anyone else find the % condition to be inconsistant, If for instance I were using a 9% condition on a trig I would expect to see it hit around every 1 in 10 over a longer period of time but for me its more like 20 passes without any then 5 in a row, basically I have never seen the % condition behave like it should on any ratio, repeats are more often grouped together with large gaps inbetween in a consistantly predictable way. Although randomness is not nessesarily my thing it would be nice if when I did use it the gaps inbetween hits felt natural rather than the opposite.
This is because creating a ”statistical random number” in code is not a trivial task. Most sequencers I’ve used which have probability-based functions suffer from this exact same problem. Which is why I only use the 1:X conditions myself.
To me, pseudo-random probability based seq operations sound very ”unmusical” (ohh how I hate the word!) for a lack of a better term.
That’s what I thought too until I watched the video that was linked above. He does a good job of explaining why that’s not how it works. The A:B options are predicable the % are not