A bit of a rant. State of tech in 2020.

[Red Electric Rainbow]

The t-shirt.

any links to the unit?

[synth.void]

any links to the unit?

Not really, I think they were at a couple trade events, and the device is work in progress. I've learned about them through the recent Dutch Modular Fest lifestream. The nerdseq developer was sporting this t-shirt.

Here's a related discussion:
https://www.gearspace.com/board/electro ... encer.html

[Red Electric Rainbow]

Not really, I think they were at a couple trade events, and the device is work in progress. I've learned about them through the recent Dutch Modular Fest lifestream. The nerdseq developer was sporting this t-shirt.

Here's a related discussion:
https://www.gearspace.com/board/electro ... encer.html

[Red Electric Rainbow]

it looks like an A4 and a Manther

[unclebastard]

I lean in favour of multitimbral synths; I used to have a Nova IIX with separate outputs for the six voices, and it was a joy to record. The Sledge I replaced it with is monotimbral, and tracking takes correspondingly longer, which detracts from the joy of making music.

[Northward]

Very frustrating … It's as if the product managers in this generation have no knowledge of what technology ever existed before their time.

Amen!
I’ve had these exact same annoying thoughts for years - (often whilst reading specs on new gear) It has reminded me of thoughts I had in my youth witnessing the fantastic innovation from Japan (especially Roland) with awe, thinking "this is only the glimpse of a future with flying cars etc". Now we do have mind blowing powerful computers and flying cars, -still we’re offered gear with laughable Mickey Mouse brains and this it’s somewhat accepted as adequate. There are cheapo drum machines from around 1980 able to string a pop track together. I’m convinced that many of these product managers haven’t got a musical cell in their body. It’s all about profit and sadly passion is thin on the ground. It’s a sin that bright sparks are now wasting their time duplicating analog synths of the past instead of pushing the envelope in creative environments.

I generally agree with what you're saying

…it is frustrating that there are so few hardware boxes that allow you to do a whole song. It also grinds my gears ( ) that it's so hard to combine long samples (like drones, live pefrormances, solos etc.) with shorter patterns. I don't want to be limited to creating songs from short patterns, it might work for techno but not much else.

Exactly. why oh why this isn’t higher on the priority list of features. Has the true innovators escaped to Kickstarter projects and submerged to the modular underground - making true innovation of our time esoteric and expensive.. hardly changing musical trends much. Accessibility for the masses it’s all about the DAWs. Fantastic possibilities, yes - but often recognisable underwhelming, thin sound.

[continuum]

here's little to no market, don't confuse the number of people posting on forums like this with actual demand.

Best statement on Muffs in a very long time.

Also, sequencer development is a great way to lose a lot of money which is a shame because I like making sequencers and have some good ideas for them. The reality is that sales are a tiny fraction of any synth/sampler/effect you can name. Luckily, I also like making the other stuff too.

[Nelson Baboon]

interesting post....i agree with some of it, and disagree with some of it.

I was just thinking yesterday about the dearth of multimbral synths now, and i've always been somewhat indifferent about needing multiple outputs for it, maybe because my mixer always tends to be maxed out. In fact, it led to me ordering an essencefm yesterday....

however, i do have lots of experience with hardware sequencers. I think that we can divide them up into 2 main types (just one way of framing it, obviously) - there is the traditional step sequencer, which I guess has its legacy in old modular sequencers, and then there is the mmt8 type. I've never really liked the former, and I also have never been very interested in building song structures from hardware sequencers. I appreciate the pyramid, but basically, give me something like the cirklon or schrittmacher any day, something that allows you to build an eternally evolving sequence from a simple structure.

That said, I see the prices of sequencers going down pretty dramatically. Several years ago, the top of the line sequencers were very expensive (also reflected in their ui and hardware, obviously, but still.....) - for instance there was the genoqs octopus, the little known anyware inseqt, and some others as i recall - all very, very expensive. the analog ones were more expensive than the digital ones....

while there seems to be more of an emphasis with pretty, user friendly sequencers for people who really don't like complex sequencing (that seq 'thing' for instance), the price is way less than the top sequencers of a few years back. The schrittmacher used to be something like $1995, but as prices have gone down (new digital step sequencers are now longer in the stratosphere) they have lowered the price on it pretty dramatically.

Electronic music gear has changed. In so many ways the new tech is lightyears ahead, and yet some of the best ideas from the old days have been forgotten.

Multitimbral synthesizers. This used to be an asked-for feature, now it's only for the pro market. What's strange to me is this notion that if a synth is multitimbral but lacks audio outputs for each voice, it's no good. That's actually not what I want! I want a multitimbral instrument that doesn't need a wall of outboard gear! The Blofeld comes to mind as a multitimbral instrument I can use without needing a mixer channel for each voice. I like that!

Sequencers. Oh man, don't get me started. Uh oh, too late. Sequencers have devolved, and as they have devolved, their price has gone up. You can go online to a boutique synthesizer outlet like Perfect Circuit (and I like Perfect Circuit) and see... 16 Step analog sequencers for $800! When did having an analog knob for your sequencer's notes become hip? That seems more like a weekend project than something to spend money on. Worse yet is the feature list. The Novation Circuit (I have one and I do enjoy it) is considered to be an "award-winning breakthrough" product for its sequencer. It is not. I have an Alesis MMT8 and a Yamaha QY70. One is from the 1980s and the other is from the 1990s. Both of those sequencers can do way more than any expensive sequencer products today. It has become an accepted fact that if you want to compose whole songs or re-use your sequences for different tracks, you must use a PC-based DAW, because "you need the full power of a desktop computer". That's baloney. Tell that to my MMT8.
The problem is the state of product management in 2020. Nobody has the courage to make a stand-alone sequencer in 2020 with what we now call "song mode" (a feature we just took for granted 20 years ago and did not have a name for it because if a sequencer didn't have it, it wasn't a sequencer). Hardware sequencers in 2020 must be a feature bundled with a sampler, in the form of a "workstation". So basically, don't bother making a sequencer unless it helps us sell this sampler. Pioneer released the Toraiz Squid hardware sequencer, but, just like my Circuit, it's only good for making a 19-minute long looping trance track. You can pay all that money and still not be able to make an innocent 3-minute pop tune, because the Squid doesn't know what a verse or a chorus are.

Very frustrating. Ultimately I will aim to get a Polyend Tracker and use its sequencer much more than I use its sampler. It's as if the product managers in this generation have no knowledge of what technology ever existed before their time.

I suppose the good news is there has never been a better time to build your own musical gear, both hardware and software.

[Nelson Baboon]

? the xpander was multimbral. would have to think hard about others.

We never really had multimtimbral 'synthesisers' in the 80s/90s, we had workstations many of which could be used for synthesis, but mostly weren't. We needed them then to do full arangements without having to buy a multitrack. Now we have the computer, they're not really needed. Not sure what you mean by the 'Pro' market anyway, even the top end workstations sell for less now in real terms than they ever have. Amateurs are often posting $3000 Eurorack starter systems yet a $3000 workstation is only for Pros?

Why no sequencers like the MMT8 or QY70? - there's little to no market, don't confuse the number of people posting on forums like this with actual demand. Given the choice between sequencing and arranging on a DAW or peering at a 2 line LCD I know which I prefer - along with 99% of the market. Analogue sequencers are popular because they're hands on and interactive.

It's the same as the constant thread on Gearslutz re 'why no rack samplers?' A few people got really fast working with rack samplers and insist there's huge latent demand to bring these back. No there isn't, most people were glad to see the back of them.

We're in a tiny market of enthusiasts, the amounts most of these devices sell in is miniscule. The only people likely to buy the type of sequencer you would like are a few enthusiasts (all of who would probably ask for completely different feature sets...). If someone did make one it's most likely they'd be an enthusiast too, it would probably sell via Kickstarter and they'll sell them in small batches as they have no real idea of demand.

Whether we like it or not bigger companies do have to play safe as they employ lots of staff that rely on them to pay their wages... The state of Tech has never been better, it's just doesn't fit what you want, sorry.

[Red Electric Rainbow]

? the xpander was multimbral. would have to think hard about others.

the Roland JV and JD lineage has plenty of multitimberal units in its lineage. Quasimidi Polymorph also comes to mind.

[Nelson Baboon]

? the xpander was multimbral. would have to think hard about others.

the Roland JV and JD lineage has plenty of multitimberal units in its lineage. Quasimidi Polymorph also comes to mind.

right - the point being that there were certainly multitimbral synths back then.

[Red Electric Rainbow]

double post

[Red Electric Rainbow]

double post

[Red Electric Rainbow]

right - the point being that there were certainly multitimbral synths back then.

the way the quotes below read it makes it seem like the opposite?

? the xpander was multimbral. would have to think hard about others.

We never really had multimtimbral 'synthesisers' in the 80s/90s, we had workstations many of which could be used for synthesis, but mostly weren't.

[Nelson Baboon]

right - the point being that there were certainly multitimbral synths back then.

the way the quotes below read it makes it seem like the opposite?

? the xpander was multimbral. would have to think hard about others.

We never really had multimtimbral 'synthesisers' in the 80s/90s, we had workstations many of which could be used for synthesis, but mostly weren't.

right - he's saying that there were NOT multimbral synths back then, and I said that there WERE multimbral synths back then.

[RickKleffel]

We never really had multimtimbral 'synthesisers' in the 80s/90s, we had workstations many of which could be used for synthesis, but mostly weren't.

I had a different experience. I was using a Linn 9000 to sequence a Six track [Six part muti-timbral], a Prophet 600, an MKs 30, an MKS 20, and an Ensoniq Mirage, the latter 16-parts multi-timbral. I also had a Bassline and Drumatix, driving a Pro 1 sequencer in the mix, and a few more besides. Running everything at once is a very different experience from overdubbing. Never did much of that, and still do not. Elektrons, and a Virus, with an Oberheim and a Novation Supernova approximate and expand the experience of yesteryear with the help of the 9000 stand-in, the MPC 1000 (still a super-power in my book) and the Social Entropy Engine.

So long as I manage to pay attention, the present days are ever the Golden Years and the Good Old Days. Tech is good and comparatively cheap, you can get it if your really want it. The limitations and unexpected integration incidents are best embraced.

Logic is a fine multi-track recorder, and the Behringer XAir a no-need-to-think-about-it interface. For a while, we had a fun studio going with Vision, and used that for some sequencing, but that tech dried up, alas.

i make do with whatever is to hand, had a blast with an 0Coast and an SQ1, a hell of a jam. Fun is arguably the most important aspect of any setup, and it's a resource that can be shaped to the moment at hand.

[hlprmnky]

I am cognizant that this could sound like the kind of question that is posed because I know the answer and want to put points on the board, but I want to be very clear that it is in fact the kind of question that is posed because I know that I do not know the answer, and wish to learn something from you all.
One of OP’s stated goals is to make a 3-minute pop song, verse-chorus-verse-chorus-verse-bridge-chorus etc., using a hardware sequencer. I have three sequencers that I think could be made to do that: a Circuit, a Digitone, and a Make Noise Rene2 - however, each one of them would have to be performed to move from pattern to pattern or state to state, right? But given that sitting right next to those devices is the laptop computer which modern society compels a man of action to own, and which came with a free DAW that can be used to organize a number of tracks, patterns, etc. into a song in a “non-performance” mode, my question is: What does “song mode” in a hardware sequencer give you, that having a library of patterns you can perform as a song does not? In a “studio” setting you can use a DAW, in a performance setting, you’re already piloting the hovercraft. What’s the advantage to having a chain of patterns stored as opposed to having to “perform” it?

[Red Electric Rainbow]

right - he's saying that there were NOT multimbral synths back then, and I said that there WERE multimbral synths back then.

ahhh perfect. so WERE on the same page then

[Nelson Baboon]

right - he's saying that there were NOT multimbral synths back then, and I said that there WERE multimbral synths back then.

ahhh perfect. so WERE on the same page then

right - i was in a rush, and pointed out one notable exception to his obviously false claim, but i didn't have time to think of others, a couple of which you mentioned.

[chaosick]

Electronic music gear has changed. In so many ways the new tech is lightyears ahead, and yet some of the best ideas from the old days have been forgotten.

Multitimbral synthesizers. This used to be an asked-for feature, now it's only for the pro market. What's strange to me is this notion that if a synth is multitimbral but lacks audio outputs for each voice, it's no good. That's actually not what I want! I want a multitimbral instrument that doesn't need a wall of outboard gear! The Blofeld comes to mind as a multitimbral instrument I can use without needing a mixer channel for each voice. I like that!

Sequencers. Oh man, don't get me started. Uh oh, too late. Sequencers have devolved, and as they have devolved, their price has gone up. You can go online to a boutique synthesizer outlet like Perfect Circuit (and I like Perfect Circuit) and see... 16 Step analog sequencers for $800! When did having an analog knob for your sequencer's notes become hip? That seems more like a weekend project than something to spend money on. Worse yet is the feature list. The Novation Circuit (I have one and I do enjoy it) is considered to be an "award-winning breakthrough" product for its sequencer. It is not. I have an Alesis MMT8 and a Yamaha QY70. One is from the 1980s and the other is from the 1990s. Both of those sequencers can do way more than any expensive sequencer products today. It has become an accepted fact that if you want to compose whole songs or re-use your sequences for different tracks, you must use a PC-based DAW, because "you need the full power of a desktop computer". That's baloney. Tell that to my MMT8.
The problem is the state of product management in 2020. Nobody has the courage to make a stand-alone sequencer in 2020 with what we now call "song mode" (a feature we just took for granted 20 years ago and did not have a name for it because if a sequencer didn't have it, it wasn't a sequencer). Hardware sequencers in 2020 must be a feature bundled with a sampler, in the form of a "workstation". So basically, don't bother making a sequencer unless it helps us sell this sampler. Pioneer released the Toraiz Squid hardware sequencer, but, just like my Circuit, it's only good for making a 19-minute long looping trance track. You can pay all that money and still not be able to make an innocent 3-minute pop tune, because the Squid doesn't know what a verse or a chorus are.

Very frustrating. Ultimately I will aim to get a Polyend Tracker and use its sequencer much more than I use its sampler. It's as if the product managers in this generation have no knowledge of what technology ever existed before their time.

I suppose the good news is there has never been a better time to build your own musical gear, both hardware and software.

The Five12 Vector is pretty amazing. I was on the Cirklon waiting list for a year then asked to be taken off once I got my Vector. The only limit is your imagination and the built in memory.

[Red Electric Rainbow]

im still blown away by users that want song mode. im not knocking users that want it or use it either. i just feel like most modern sequencers are geared toward live use and jamming that then gets edited down in a DAW. i do have a feeling that if manufacturers do start to reimplement it, that users will still not be happy. eventually it turns into an endless circle of “meh its ok, but it can’t do this and it can’t do that.”

[ahmo]

I agree with the original post. When you are aware of all the great designs of the past, it’s surprising some things don’t make it in new designs.

Multitimbral synths / instruments are a huge benefit. You learn the interface of a synth and can apply it to many voices. If you play 4 note chords on a polysynth the rest of the voices are wasted if not multitimbral. Or a bassline on a prophet 5, 4 voices idle. Layering patches also a very inportant part of synthesis, stock on the CS-80’s architecture for a single patch, then you can play 2 together.

Samplers also had amazing features that now you can’t find on newer designs. The ASR-10 was ingenius despite it’s shortcomings, the Emax had additive synthesis and a bunch of features to get the most out of it, many of which I’d never use.
Multitimbrality webt away because of computers I think, before people had racks of Emu E4 samplers for the libraries to use in live shows, same for the sound modules of the time. Composers not playing live have alternatives that are more attractive.

Sequencing has never been more diverse, but some omissions like song mode may be to provide simplicity where the rest may be complicated. Seems strage to me as well.

With al the good ideas around it would seem it’s easy to make something with all the best ideas and have a great interface. Perhaps because back in the golden era it was cutting edge so you had top minds designing to solve problems and provide the best tools available. Now I can’t imagine many NASA contractors are moonlighting in synth or instrument design like back in the day.

Even the new MPC’s have great new features but miss some of the older innovations. The JJ OS for the MPC-1000 and 2500 are amazing and way ahead of other mpcs as far as workflow and functions go, but that was created by an Ex Akai programmer who unlocked the potential of the machine by listening to users on the MPC forums and doing something no company seems to be inclined to do. The original 1000 had the capability to be like the 2500 with audio tracks etc. But Akai crippled it in software to push people towards the 2500. That said, I don’t think anybody uses everything it does, but if you want it, it’s there. How new products don’t take the best ideas take it further is a mystery, but also how they can’t seem to even get good sync timing on some machines is aso perplexing.

[ahmo]

Song mode is basic, even the Tr-808 has it. CHhaining a few patterns together, fills, intros, etc. So they you can turn and play another sequencer or synth live over it.

It is a basic function of sequencers, odd that it is omitted, and odd that it isn’t expanded, like say playing the sequencer ‘live’ and having the pattern order and ALL the live variations recorded into the song, like motion sequencing on the first korg electribes.

Then go on and do something else. Later you can always chop it in your computer. The point is there is selective rehashing, and few advancements.

[tioJim]

I think part of the challenge with sequencers is there's no one size fits all. For some songs a simple step sequencer will suffice, or even define the track full stop, for others nothing short of a DAW will fulfill one's vision.

[Red Electric Rainbow]

Perhaps because back in the golden era it was cutting edge so you had top minds designing to solve problems and provide the best tools available.

what do you consider the golden era and why? i think the products on the market today absolutely slay.

Now I can’t imagine many NASA contractors are moonlighting in synth or instrument design like back in the day.

George Hearn (Modal, UDO Super Six) background as a designer has spanned medical equipment, Formula 1 racing, and aviation. Not exactly NASA, but it looks like he can probably send them his resume for future consideration. Maybe they’d consider the Super 6 a time machine?

but also how they can’t seem to even get good sync timing on some machines is aso perplexing.

thats absolutely mind-blowing to me too, but plenty of gear through the years have struggled in that department as well. sometimes i wonder if its because they try to make it compatible with too many different sync sources?