xox box sequencer inferior ? can we change that?

Discuss mods, hacks, tweaks, etc.

Moderators: altitude, adafruit_support_bill, adafruit, phono, hamburgers

Please be positive and constructive with your questions and comments.
3phase
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:06 pm

Re: xox box sequencer inferior ? can we change that?

Post by 3phase »

darffader wrote:
3phase wrote: when you dont do clocking via audio your dinsync clock is allways as bad as the midi master clock...
that cant be true.

midi is a serial digital protocol
dinsync is an analogue TTL style protocol.

midi can have delays (due to other midi info on the chain)
dinsync is direct, has no delays
Any MIDI to DINSYNC conversion (like the ones in your 303's) has it's latency/delay and doesnt lock in right. so it cant be as bad.
you missunderstand.. the principles are clear.. but whether an mpc 3000 is your clockmaster or a pc laptop..the din sync clock generated out of that midi clock cant be beter than the source...

so your argument only matters in conjunction with your audio interface trick.. without that its better to just stick to the midi theese days.. since i ve all the midi interfaces in my old machines setting up on stage is much easier..
however.. still like din sync on a 303 because i ve a special synccable with a switch that allows me to sto and start the 303 n the middle of the song to go into write mode...

What midi interface do you use and how did you measure the jitter on the midi clock signal?
Besides jitter I also care bout the lock-in latency. Using dinsync thru audio ports there's is virtually no lock-in latency besides what is added internally in the 303.
in reality all this machines behave different on the clock..the 808 is extremly fast..the 303 rather late.. you allways had to puzzle which interface for which machine in the past..

with ableton live i can delay the midi prots on my rme independently..and all midi prots of my mt 4 globaly...

so i ve 3 different offset delays on stage.. the electribes are shifted early..the 808 late.. the rest somewher in the middle...

thats my problems with latency and i am better equiped to deal with that with midi theese days..
ther is a berlin guy that has build a 8 channel shifter device that features midi,din, and audio clocking..
nice machine.. but an extra baggage on stage... but i see the unit in more and more berlin techno studios..

i measure midi jitter by recording the midi pulses to audio via a terminated adapter cable and BANNED the distance between the pulses... if the clock is stable the max derivation of the count can be +/- 1 samples
a 303 TRACK MODE = SONG MODE can have up to 255 unique bars and a "jump to" bar
a x0xb0x track up to 16 bars..
thats what i ment... the songmode is anyway not worth to mention...

but we have to keep that to the coders.. in case pattern dump would work one day one can use one os for writing lines and on os for playing them in song mode...
ps: i use tap input too all the time but most of my friends look strange at me when i do so;)
i do aswell..and people that look strange have no clue how much time that safes..
i also wrote to the MFB guys about that his little nice 808 versions (mfb 522) miss tab input badly..

as a musican you often have an idea how a line should play.. if you dont have absolute hearing you might be uncertain about the pitches.. but you are most defently certain about the timing of a melody... t type that in is the only way to realize that idea.. when you start the xox process of dialing it in an 16 th step after the other the idea is most certainly gone before you are half thru it...

so beside timesafing the missing tab is killing musical ideas themself...

So antto when you read that.. go for tab input !! :-))

i know that this can be a bit difficult with the event timings... its important to have a rather wide window on each step to allow the writing of that step.. so in ideal the while beeing in tab mode the the window that accepts a buuton press as note input starts slightly before the actual step..and ends after 2/3 of 16 th period. and you need a detection of held notes..so when the key is not released before the window has passed the note is sustained.. maybe the 2/3 window needs to be slightly longer?

i patched such things for reaktor.. i know thats not so easy..but with a bit tweeking its allwright..the 303 tab input sometimes gets it wrong aswell..depends on your playing skills...

however.. in the xox we might be able to edit this while running.. would be great...

User avatar
antto
 
Posts: 1636
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 3:21 pm

Re: xox box sequencer inferior ? can we change that?

Post by antto »

Luap: the stock firmware is boring, yes, it only gives you the bare minimum set of functionality to make use of the otherwise great synth beneath the x0xb0x, and the sequencer is just like every other clone-style sequencer (16 steps)

SokkOS on the other hand is way cooler since it has _additional_ extras like pattern manipulation, shuffle, and a bit better suited for performance i might say

but, if you ask me.. even the bare minimum features that make the original 303 sequencer what it is - is way better than any of these
not to mention if it had similar "extras" like pattern manipulation and so on..
well, i'm about to try and do that ;]

if you still don't get the point, think of it like this: because the 303 pattern editor is different, it predisposes you to write completely different patterns compared to a clone-sequencer
yes, all clone-sequencers are fully able to make a pattern sound the same as on the 303 (probably excluding the tripplet modes) but it is the difference in the interface (and internal mechanizm) that is so priceless
you probably can't imagine what could be done with the patterns (in terms of pattern manipulation) when they are split into notes and time

User avatar
computer controlled
 
Posts: 714
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 5:48 pm

Re: xox box sequencer inferior ? can we change that?

Post by computer controlled »

Strange thread. I find it odd that someone would say the 303's sequencer is superior than the x0x's. Especially for live use. The 303 is simply to awkward to program live. Not sure why anyone would even try. Do your sequencing ahead of time. The 303's sequencer isn't hard to use, but it is cumbersome. The real step sequencer of the x0xb0x is simply far superior. I think its more to do with being comfortable with using the 303, then having to get use to a new sequencer. The SokkOS makes it WAY better than the 303 sequencer for sure. The x0xb0x CAN be programmed on the fly, unlike the 303.

User avatar
antto
 
Posts: 1636
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 3:21 pm

Re: xox box sequencer inferior ? can we change that?

Post by antto »

O_o
what do you mean? have you seen how fast you can program a pattern into a 303?
and, there is no other firmware for the x0x that has tripplet mode AFAIK..

also i find it annoying when a "rest" clears the note under it, in a 303 that doesn't happen
i'm not saying that this or that firmware/sequencer is the best or anything
just in my opinion.. first of all initialy i hated that 303 sequencer because no matter what i did i couldn't understand it (because there isn't much information about it on the net)
and i developed a clone-style sequencer for my soft-synth (which could be compared to ReBirth, x0xb0x / SokkOS, ABL, Phoscyon, whatever..)
it even had quite a huge amount of "manipulation tools" like randomizing individual stuff, so it was quite big feature-wise (more than SokkOS for example)

but after getting more information about how the damn 303 sequencer works (thanks to rv0) i actually fell in love with it
so much that i threw away all the hundreds of lines of code i wrote for my soft synth, and now after writing n0nx0x - i'm writing a very similar sequencer for my soft synth too
why do i bother? because it's worth it..
yet, there are still people who prefere the clone-style sequencers
but there are also alot of people that love the 303 sequencer

IMO, as a developer with experience in both types of sequencers - i go for adding the manipulation tools i had in my clone-style seq, to n0nx0x and his bigger brother..
it'll be so much better than ever :mrgreen:

User avatar
computer controlled
 
Posts: 714
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 5:48 pm

Re: xox box sequencer inferior ? can we change that?

Post by computer controlled »

For one, you need to stop the 303 to write a pattern. So for live use, it's pointless. Not sure how fast you can write a pattern into the 303 has to do with anything. Sure you can do it fast, but it's most likely gonna be just plugging in random notes and gating info. Otherwise, you actually do need to think for a min as to where the note ons/sustains/rests are gonna go. The x0x is all right there in front of you visually.

User avatar
antto
 
Posts: 1636
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 3:21 pm

Re: xox box sequencer inferior ? can we change that?

Post by antto »

you can't program a pattern of 4 long notes faster than on a 303 ;]
just count the buttons you have to press

303:
PITCHMODE
UP + d#
UP + e
UP + C
UP + d#
// 9 so far
FUNC
PITCHMODE
// 11
NEXT + accent
NEXT + accent
NEXT + accent
NEXT + accent
TIMEMODE
// 20
GOOOGOOOGOOOGOOO
20 + 16 = 36

x0xb0x stock firmware?:
i'm not sure, but i'm sure you have to press NEXT all the time
and you have to press UP and ACCENT for every single note (16 times at least)
you also need to use SLIDE since you can't make long notes otherwise
let me calculate it approximately
NEXT * 16
ACCENT + UP * 16
SLIDE * 15
my calculator says: 48 + 15 = 63
hm.. ;]

NOTE: i'll probably add an option (in the settings) to n0nx0x to be able to set all the "DUAS" information while writing the notes in the first place, so this eliminates the need to go back to PitchMode again to enter accent/slides.. (eliminates pressing the NEXT key 4 times here, thus - 32)

User avatar
rv0
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:50 pm

Re: xox box sequencer inferior ? can we change that?

Post by rv0 »

about being able to program live: sure its cool..

but i _really_ dont wanna do that in a live situation.

i will certainly not say one is better than the other because of that

what matters to me is the speed of programming and the inspiring aspect of the sequencer, and there the 303-way of programming is a winner imo

the original x0x firmware is really "basic" compared to the full feature set of the 303 firmware.

d2ba
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 5:04 am

Re: xox box sequencer inferior ? can we change that?

Post by d2ba »

is there any other OS for xox that pretty much is similar original TB-303 OS
I have both a TB-303 and XOX and I agree that the sequencer is not as funky as the original TB-303 - this needs to be addressed-
BTW I made one of the first TB-303 records in 1982-1983 so I know what Im talking about
David

Luap
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 7:10 pm

Re: xox box sequencer inferior ? can we change that?

Post by Luap »

d2ba wrote:is there any other OS for xox that pretty much is similar original TB-303 OS
I have both a TB-303 and XOX and I agree that the sequencer is not as funky as the original TB-303 - this needs to be addressed-
BTW I made one of the first TB-303 records in 1982-1983 so I know what Im talking about
David
As seen in sticky above your post..
http://forums.adafruit.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=16065

Locked
Please be positive and constructive with your questions and comments.

Return to “x0xm0dz”