[sdiy] Sequencer design

[Steve Lenham]

On 09/03/2015 16:32, Rob Spencer wrote:
> Performance wise, the multiple pot option is nice and easy to play as
> you can make adjustments as it's cycling through the steps, but that
> comes at the price of loss of wiring.
>
> The one pot option is easier to build, but you have to step through
> each step, set each one in turn, then see how it sounds. If you want
> to make an adjustment, it needs to be stopped, moved to the correct
> step, adjusted, then listened to again.

I don't think that the OP was asking about a one-pot vs. multi-pot, more 
about whether to:

a) permanently combine the outputs of all the pots (with diodes, a 
mixer, or whatever) then power up just one pot at a time for each step,

or

b) have all pots permanently powered up but use an analogue selector to 
pick off the wiper voltage from just one of them for each step.

Seems to me that, for the user, there is no difference but that a) is 
slightly less complex to implement because turning a rail voltage on and 
off is easier than switching a varying analogue signal.

You could argue that, since we are likely to be counting in binary, a) 
requires a decoder to get the individual control signals where b) might 
not, but in reality you would need that anyway to drive step LEDs and 
gate outputs. And - as another poster pointed out - there is always the 
classic 4017!

So, basically, there is not a lot in it.

Cheers,

Steve L.