MOTM

I fully agree with both of Dave's points below. I can imagine a homebrew 
sequencer that resets to stage 1 so that the next clock pulse (and gate 
signal for the EG) would advance it to stage 2, but I can't imagine 
manufacturing (or buying!) a sequencer like that: this would merely be an 
example of poor (i.e., un-MOTM) design.

As far as an asynchronous reset (or any other asynchronous logic circuits), 
I'm not sure I would like that at all due to the way I use sequencers. Has 
anyone found this type of logic useful for EM?

But Andy's original post made me think that it might be useful to have a few 
RESET inputs, each for resetting to different stages. After which I thought 
it might be better to just have several PULSE inputs, each of which could be 
user defined for RESET TO X, LOOP TO X FOR N TIMES, BRANCH TO X, HOLD UNTIL 
J, etc.

And I'll leave the trivial details of programming this to Paul.

JB

In a message dated 8/22/99 12:27:24 PM, daveb@... writes:

>This is well known standard synchronous logic counter behavior. Using a
>microprocessor, Paul can emulate synch OR async behavior in software. Or
>even user switchable, but that level of flexibility is probably too
>confusing.

>I can't imagine that the SOS review is accurate on this point. If most
>sequencer designers were committing such basic logic errors such that step
>one is not played first, they would be out of a job PDQ!