Ok, if the arp is anything like as sophisticated as the K5000 one then I'd happily go for that as a priority over the sequencer. As long as I can still have my slide notes and accents. The arp on the Novation Nova might also be a good, simpler model. It's somewhere between an arp and a sequencer too, in that it allows different gate-lengths, slides and accents to be preprogrammed, while still acting like an arpeggiator.
I still want my NRPNs though,and velocity mappable to various things.
a|x
--- On Wed, 12/11/08, Atom Smasher <atom@...> wrote:
> From: Atom Smasher <atom@...>
> Subject: Re: [korgpolyex] Bugs, 303's and sequencers
> To: korgpolyex@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, 12 November, 2008, 11:58 PM
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Michael Hawkins wrote:
>
> > i) I plan to implement an arpeggiator with features
> somewhat similar to
> > a cut down version of the Kawai K5000 arp. Obviously
> how much "cut down"
> > depends upon time and my inclination to do it which
> depends upon
> > musician input and how much pizza and beer is
> provided. :-)
> ================
>
> http://optimolch.de/jens.groh/K5000/GregWaltzer/egw/equipment/k5000arp.htm
>
> that sounds... ambitious. the more of a good job you do
> implementing it,
> the more i'm afraid of how bad the UI will be ;)
>
>
> > ii) Route the sequencer to VCF cutoff, resonance or
> EG1/2/3 attack (with
> > the sequencer notes either playing or not).
> ==================
>
> overkill. see below about the sequencer.
>
> as long as velocity can be routed to amps, filters, etc
> (envelope
> parameters would be nice, but IMHO not crucial) then a
> ∗reasonable∗ 303
> emulation can be done with the hawk-800. ∗BUT∗ the hawk-800
> will never
> ~really~ emulate a 303 because, among other things, the
> filters are too
> different. so... i say do what's reasonable, but
> don't go overboard trying
> to turn the hawk-800 into a 303 emulator.... make it do
> some of the 303
> tricks (apparently it already does!) and support for a
> velocity/accent
> (which i think it can do?), but then let people use it for
> the 2 DCO,
> 2/4-pole DCF, weird ENVs, 4(?!?!) LFOs, 21st century
> firmware/hardware
> modified 80s geek synth that it is. the world does ∗not∗
> need another 303
> emulator.
>
> to emulate a 303: all non-accent notes have a velocity 1.
> all accent notes
> have a velocity 127. edit a patch so the velocity makes it
> a little
> louder, opens up the filter a bit, and if it implemented,
> shorten the
> filter-env attack (or something like that, it's been a
> while since i
> studied the 303 schematics).
>
> personally, i don't want a 303 emulator, as such. it
> would be nice to have
> those features available so i could use it as a hawk-800
> that's just that
> much funkier, and be able to program ~other~
> "accent" and/or slide style
> tricks. ya know, not the kind of things where people hear
> it and say "that
> sounds almost like 303", but they'd say "holy
> shit! that has a 303 kind
> groove, but how the hell did he do that??"
>
>
> > iii) Provide multiple sequencer patterns that can then
> be sequenced in a
> > user set order.
> ===================
>
> no comment. see below.
>
>
> > Now the big issue here, is that the ARP will take a
> lot of work and I
> > have it as the highest priority of things to do. But
> the question should
> > be directed to HAWK-800 owners as to what they would
> rather see first.
> > ARP or better sequencer? Since I think using a Poly as
> a sequencer is
> > just plain silly ( :-) ), that is why I chose to work
> on the ARP first.
> > I do know that I would like to have points ii and iii
> though because
> > they would make a really bad sequencer - well - a
> little less bad.
> ======================
>
> i'd rather see a good arp, and don't care about a
> sequencer. but... maybe
> an arp can be a mini-sequencer too?
>
> good hardware or software sequencers are easy to find and
> cheap. the same
> cannot be said for good arpeggiators. my logic, then, is
> that nearly
> anyone with the resources to get a hawk-800 should have the
> resources to
> find a suitable external sequencer. the same does not apply
> to a good
> arpeggiator. so (IMHO) the hawk-800 should skip the
> sequencer and focus on
> the arpeggiator.
>
> maybe a good feature that would blur the line between a
> mini-sequencer and
> an arpeggiator would be this: enter a series of notes that
> can be played
> back entered. program arpeggiator functions. then (per
> "sequence") assign
> a value that determines what percentage of the notes are
> arpeggiated.
> so... select a "arp" value of zero and the notes
> play back as entered;
> select an "arp" value of 99 and all of the notes
> are arpeggiated; select
> an "arp" value of 50 and each note has a 50%
> chance of either playing as
> entered or being arpeggiated. i'm not sure if the
> hardware can handle that
> (we've already discussed the random generation issues
> of the CPU) but it
> might solve the "arpeggiator or sequencer"
> question.
>
>
> > Anyway, the bottom line is ARP or sequencer features -
> which to do
> > first?
> =================
>
> arp.
>
>
> --
> ...atom
>
> ________________________
> http://atom.smasher.org/
> 762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> "Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is
> the
> goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other
> living beings, we are still savages."
> -- Thomas A. Edison
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>