|
|
Jan 31, 2012 at 10:45am
seq~ VS patch-based sequencer VS javascript, feelings? facts?
hi there,
exploring deeper seq~ object, I wanted to know a bit more about your experiences with it.
I used to patch my own sequencer logic (sequence storing + visual feedback)
When I exaggerate a bit, it can lag a very bit.. (I mean, when I push the limit too far but it means a lot for me)
To separate ui & engine wins almost always.
A lot of people are also using JS to fire notes, which I don’t trust absolutely even if that JS is now fast & furious.
my latest explorations are around :
- a master script JS (feeded by the time tick clock, writing notes in seq~, drawing an ui)
- a seq~ playing note (feeded by the time tick clock (basically a phasor~))
does it make sense ?
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2012 at 2:39pm
In my experience, yes. The timing you’ll get from seq~ is going to be superior (though I would add that I haven’t gone back and tested with Max6), plus you get all sorts of fun things via phasor~. I like using pow~ to alter the shape of the wave in order to create accelerandi and ritardandi.
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2012 at 3:17pm
Thanks a lot Peter for your answer.
I played with techno~ too, but afaik, it is step sequencer (instead of continuous domain as seq~)
What do you think about this architecture:
- seq~ driven by phasor etc.
- JSUI for UI & logic
?
Tweaking that these hours :)
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2012 at 7:03pm
Seems pretty reasonable to me, though it depends on what you’re doing and how precise your timing has to be.
If you want to see an almost all signal-rate sequencer, check out the EML-200 model project. Its sequencer is modelled on analog step sequencers and can be driven as an oscillator. It’s more than a little weird in the way it works, and I wouldn’t necessarily advise that architecture, but it may give some ideas as well.
|
