MOTM

On 6/5/07, djbrow54 put forth:
>It seems like you could use one of the inexpensive AVR processors,
>like the ATMEGA8, couple it with an inexpensive quad DAC like the
>AD5726, and have a neat little slice.  4 of the 10 bit A/Ds could be
>for sequencer controls and two could be used to for an input control
>CV.  Other I/O could be used for
>clocks and carry in/outs for daisy chaining these slices together.
>You could parallel and series connect as many as you want, and use the
>carry out / carry in to transfer clock control from slice to slice.

Many years ago, I had designed a "nanosequencer" that was a 1 X 4
combination CV-step and gate sequencer that fit nicely in a 2U
module.  The idea was instead of one large expensive sequencer, any
number of nanosequencers could be stacked together, either
horizontally or vertically.  So if you had four of them, then you
could patch them together to make a 1 X 16, 2 X 8, or 4 X 4 sequencer,
or two 1 X 8 sequencers, or one 2 X 4 sequencer and two 1 X 4
sequencers, etc.  I had a working prototype built around a small
handful of discrete CMOS.  It was simple and inexpensive.  Larry and
I had worked out a 2U expander module that added 2 more CV channels
and another row of gates.  Moe had drawn up a number of different
Stooge panels.  Many people thought that it was a very clever and
innovative design.  So I had thought about doing a run of PCB's, but
right around the same time Paul announced the 600, and it was decided
that introducing a possibly competing sequencer in MOTM format was a
bad idea.

On 6/4/07, groovyshaman put forth:
>Opinion alert: There is no legal substitute for the tactile feedback of
>a hardware sequencer.

I totally agree with that, although parallel input isn't that much of
a tactical advantage when using a step sequencer.

>Thanks for the Numerology information, I'll check it out down the road.
>  Sounds like a flexible, versatile, feature rich sequencer for a very
>reasonable price - nothing like most hardware sequencers.

Even ignoring price, imho, it can beat any hardware sequencer out
there as a compositional tool.  Although, I have not tried using a
CV-to-MIDI converter to see if I can select steps with a control
voltage.  That is one function that would be easier with a voltage
sequencer.

>Hey, there's no reason why you can have it all.  Once I have myself a
>good ol hardware sequencer I can add a soft sequencer too, and for a
>heck of a lot less money and a heck of a lot less work. :)

Numerology does have a fader box module.  Although I have never tried
it even though I have a Peavey PC1600x.