Each of these models has features the other does not, so it's difficult to compare. My personal solution to this dilemma was to get both (and a second MAQ). If you must choose only one sequencer, it really depends on how you will work with it (what features you require) and how it will interface with your system and other gear.
To access the full power of the MAQs, you need to use a MIDI device (sequencer or customizable control surface) to send program change messages to create variations in the sequence. For example, you can use a MIDI message to change the running direction from forward to random, then another message to change back to forward. Like this: http://vimeo.com/58943038
You can change ALL of the parameters of an MAQ sequence this way. However, when paired with the A-154, the A-155 features can be voltage controlled (running direction, first/last step) by using LFOs, MIDI/CV, another step sequencer, etc. There is still plenty you can do without using MIDI messages with the MAQ, but MIDI really makes it a much deeper device.
Neither the MAQ nor the A-155 have shuffle, although there are ways to add a shuffle effect to the A-155 using other modules (see another post in the forum RE: what module I need to get?, I think it was called). There may be MIDI processors that can add shuffle to the MAQ, but I have never tried this. The Darktime that Florian mentioned DOES have shuffle.
The MAQ has MIDI in and out so it is easily clocked from a computer or drum machine and can be used to sequence your Access Virus or your DX-100 alike. To clock the A-155 from MIDI will require some sort of MIDI/CV interface capable of sending a rhythmic gate pattern from a sequencer (either a clock signal or whatever gate pattern you choose, including one with shuffle) or drum machine with a trigger output.
To control a MIDI synth with the A-155 will require another module to convert CV to MIDI, but I have never tried this.
Both the MAQ and A-155 will benefit from A-156 Quantizers. Dialing in the correct note when the MAQ is set to a 5 Octave range is very difficult, so having a Quantizer there means you just have to get close and it will fix it for you. Yes, the MAQ produces semi-tone increments, but I like to use the scale settings on the Quantizers to quickly program complementary sequences on all rows. Otherwise it can get a bit hard to achieve more "musical" results. Also, the A-156 allow you to transpose your CV sequence using CV sources (like CV Source and VC Switch, MIDI/CV, Square attenuated LFO, row 2 of A-155, etc). The MAQ transpose is a bit different, either requiring the use of one of your sequence rows or via the MIDI in. I usually just use the A-156 here too as I often work without MIDI other than for sync clock. The Darktime does allow MIDI transpose of the sequence. It should be noted that using an A-156 with an A-155 will render the Glide section of the A-155 obsolete, unless you modify the A-155 (as I did with mine) to patch the quantized signal back to the Glide circuit. This was done with an insert socket between the pre-out and glide circuit (patch pre-out to Quantizer, Quantizer out back to insert socket).
One thing that the MAQ can do that a single A-155 cannot is have each row set to differing parameter values, meaning each row can have a different last step, different timing division, different running direction, etc. This allows for some very complex and evolving polyrhythms. Rather than a repetitive loop, you can get a set of patterns that only repeats the same way every 32 bars (or possibly never!), for example. You would need a different A-155/154 for each rhythm as the two rows of each A-155 share the same parameter set.
If you have an MAQ and want to create a gate pattern for S+H, reset, seq switch, or whatever, you will need additional modules to separate the gates you want from the MAQ pattern, otherwise you must sacrifice the CV channel for that row as they are always linked. If however you do have other modules like Logic, sequential and VC switches, LFOs, clock divider/seq, etc, you can manage to isolate specific gates from a rhythmic pattern. The A-155 makes this much easier by having three trigger rows and one gate row, all independent of the CV rows. It's also easy enough to add a modification to the A-155 (again, like I did with mine) which adds individual trigger outputs for each step, similar to an A-161 Clock Seq module. This is not possible with the MAQ without the A-160/161.
Ok one last point, then I'll let you get on with your day....
The A-155 has a feature that the other Doepfer sequencers do no have. The row of sockets along the bottom are inputs to the lower CV row, so inserting a signal here will replace the setting made with the knob and the knob will instead work as an attenuator for the external signal. This feature lets you sequence anything! You can sequence modulation signals, audio signals, anything. And you need not replace all CV values, for instance you can insert an LFO in just one input. If you Quantize the output of row2, you will get a flurry of notes in place of the one step, and the notes will likely be different ever time creating variety in your sequence. This has just given me an idea to try when I get home using multiple audio loops and using the A-155 to switch between them running in random direction.
There are a couple other examples of using the A-155 as a graphic VCO and a random drum pattern generator on my blog page:
http://www.niroke.blogspot.com
Good luck with your decision!
Nick
On Jun 21, 2013, at 4:07 AM, "anoop.sahal" <draks@apollo111.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Still planning my system!
>
> I am dithering between a MAQ and say 3(A-155 with A-154) and (2 x A-156, the dual quantiser)
>
> The latter looks better perhaps , but the former would sit nicely between my midi stuff and the A-100 units.
>
> I think the MAQ should inherit the genes of the A-100-look. Instead I think the MAQ looks too modern.
>
> What opinions are there about the 19 inch mounts. The A-100 cases are a little steeply priced and the cheap ones look, ....cheap.
>
> Do people make their own cases much?
>
> Are there any photo's of your systems I could look at?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]