seq~ VS patch-based sequencer VS javascript, feelings? facts?

    Jan 31 2012 | 10:45 am
    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 | 2:39 pm
      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 | 3:17 pm
      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 | 7:03 pm
      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.