seq2 text

[harry bissell]

Tim:

Not that I'm a purist, but you may honk me if you like...
The issue isn't whether the code would work (and I'll honk the analog guys myself)
because the CPU solution is probably easier and more effective. But it requires a
much higher "tech" level which many home labs lack. AND... If you want to run these
sequences in live performance, subtly shifting analog values by hand... then lots of
knobs are a very effective user interface. Myself, if I wanted sequences that I
could preset I'd just record them into Cakewalk etc. and be done with it.

If you have to read (let's say) 64 pots in real time with a micro... you will be in
deep doo-doo...  :^) Harry

Tim Ressel wrote:

> At the risk of honking off any purists out there, I gotta say this sounds like
> perfect (gulp) microprocessor project. Let's see: a 12-bit D/A for output, a
> couple of lines for triggers, a rotary encoder and a few switches for input, and
> an LCD display for eyeball feedback. Of course what I just did was swap gobs of
> pots and wires for gobs of code, but I think the benefits are worth it. Ah, even
> better! scrap the user interface and have a serial link to a PC. Write a Visual
> Basic application for a front-end and download sequences to the box. Nifty.
>
> I think I will wander off and think about this...
>
> --Timster