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.
Fiercefish
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 11:43 am

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

Post by Fiercefish »

Heh, well I doubt your 303 is in as bad shape as this one-

http://www.flickr.com/photos/15984624@N ... 682622735/

I bought it like that and restored and modded it to this-

http://www.flickr.com/photos/15984624@N07/1736597302/

I got most of the missing parts from chipforbrains/technology transplant, so there is hope for your ailing 303 :)

User avatar
phono
 
Posts: 1502
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 4:01 pm

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

Post by phono »

Fiercefish wrote:Heh, well I doubt your 303 is in as bad shape as this one-

http://www.flickr.com/photos/15984624@N ... 682622735/
oh man thats messed up

3phase
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:06 pm

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

Post by 3phase »

oh my god. poor little thing.. but you gave it some love and now its a shiny black beaut :-)

my is far from that condition... actually still pretty good...but it has failed me 2 times on stage last year..and when your 303 starts crashing its probably the sign that it likes to stay at home? i got the xoxbox kit to have a affordable replacement for live shows.. ..but... i realized thats nt so easy to replace the 303..sofar te xox was only usefull in the studio to me..

would be nice to change that...



may i ask how much you paid for the destroid 303? actually i would love to find a messed up one cheap and build it up...maybe even in another housing with inbuild power supply and midi interface usb hub for all the other machines...

3phase
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:06 pm

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

Post by 3phase »

what is teh second resonance knob doing?

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 »

a friend of mine once fixed a 303 with cracked pcb.. the pcb was literally in half!

anything can be fixed on a 303.. besides dead CPU so far, you need to build a replacement CPU chip first sadly.
it is however possible to midify a 303 with broken CPU. it has been done.

ONTOPIC:
In any case.. The size restrictions are terrible so features will have to be abandoned..
i couldnt care less for midi clock, as din sync syncs way better and allows external shuffling.. So if you ask me, the midi part may be removed.
Although: triggering patterns from midi could be a replacement for track mode if there's no room for real track mode.

3phase
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:06 pm

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

Post by 3phase »

i opose to that.. had so many gigs in the past where the dyn sync converter BANNED up the show.. i prefer midi theese days since the clock under mack osx is so nicely stable.. i also installed midiclock interfaces in in my 303 and 606 and 808 to avoid error sources on stage...

as said in the other thread i vote to abandon song mode.....and keyboard out mode and random out mode...

but elsewise there is not so much to abandon...

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 »

3phase wrote:i opose to that.. had so many gigs in the past where the dyn sync converter BANNED up the show.. i prefer midi theese days since the clock under mack osx is so nicely stable.. i also installed midiclock interfaces in in my 303 and 606 and 808 to avoid error sources on stage...

as said in the other thread i vote to abandon song mode.....and keyboard out mode and random out mode...
.
most of my music consists of short patterns that make up longer melodies using transpose in song mode.
send me a PM and I send you some music.. those things cant be done live without making mistakes, not enough hands, hands not quick enough
i rely on this stuff heavily for my music. EDIT: uploaded example, track mode + shuffled dinsync: http://users.telenet.be/darffader/trackshuf.mp3

MIDI from PC is too unstable to convert with dinsync converter.. really. Even normal midi clock sucks compared to results I'm getting with dinsync from pc.
How do I get stable dinsync from pc you wonder? I've written software that sends sample-accurate dinsync from the PC audio ports: http://www.rv0.be
My dinsync I get from pc is tighter than the dinsync I get from a hardware master clock. Also using OSX. It's tighter than any other sync method know to men ;)

The advantage of dinsync is that it's direct, can be divided to +3 units, and the signal can be shuffled/stopped/started anytime
no digital 1010101001 magic, just plain analogue pulses.

Fiercefish
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 11:43 am

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

Post by Fiercefish »

3phase wrote:

may i ask how much you paid for the destroid 303? actually i would love to find a messed up one cheap and build it up...maybe even in another housing with inbuild power supply and midi interface usb hub for all the other machines...
I think I paid about £160 about 5 years ago, but I spent a lot on parts, the CPU cost me 150 (and was very hard to find one) I also installed midi in and out in it :wink:

I like dinsync and CV/GATE better than midi, but I think they are all useful, and allow us to hook up all sorts of interesting combo's :wink:

But midi has to be tight, the very few machines that can do tight midi are the Elektrons and MPC's but there are a few others too, sadly though most midi is BANNED timing, especially when coming from a computer, not tight enough for me.

The tightest machine ever though is the Roland MC-4b, pretty much flawlessly robotic :lol:

Oh, dinsync can be split upto over 100 times according to Robin Whittle :!:
Last edited by Fiercefish on Sat May 15, 2010 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 »

Fiercefish wrote: Oh, dinsync can be split upto over 100 times according to Robin Whittle :!:
lol probably even more...

but.. without amplifying ±4 is a good maximum..
3 is better, but 4 will work too
Last edited by rv0 on Sat May 15, 2010 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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: most of my music consists of short patterns that make up longer melodies using transpose in song mode.
send me a PM and I send you some music.. those things cant be done live without making mistakes, not enough hands, hands not quick enough
i rely on this stuff heavily for my music.

MIDI from PC is too unstable to convert with dinsync converter.. really. Even normal midi clock sucks compared to results I'm getting with dinsync from pc.
How do I get stable dinsync from pc you wonder? I've written software that sends sample-accurate dinsync from the PC audio ports: http://www.rv0.be
My dinsync I get from pc is tighter than the dinsync I get from a hardware master clock. Also using OSX.

The advantage of dinsync is that it's direct, can be divided to +3 units, and the signal can be shuffled/stopped/started anytime
no digital 1010101001 magic, just plain analogue pulses.

you dont have to convince.. me years ago i developed a way to clock over audio ports..but since the mac os is so stable clockwise i dont use it anymore..as less active components i ve on stage as better.all this laptop live acts crash less theese days than the good ol hardware live act..thanks to all the interface boxes and socket power supplys..

anyway.. i want dinsync AND midi sync with the xox and i bet the majority of users dont like to abonden the midi to cv ability.. besides.. i dont think that 2 options need much code.. midi and clock sync are very similar..same pulse rate.,,

the coders might answer this question..are ther relevant savigs in abandoing midi ? or din sync?


anyway.. i guess ther are relevant savings in abandon songmode... and just beacuse you have a special style dont makes this rudimentary xox song mode any better... arent ther other ways to achive what you need? for example..if it would be possible with the xox to chain up to 8 patterns.. and it gets optimissed i a way that turnig the bank knob just plays the next 8 pattern bank..

would this allow you to achive your goals without having a songmode? just a few moves more but nice 8 bar pattersn that can be switched any time..take over at the next one.. in ideal taking the relativ position ..
so when you change after at the 4th pattern to anoter bank it starts playing at pattern 5 there?

i think this could be pretty BANNED and close to a song mode...

3phase
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:06 pm

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

Post by 3phase »

Fiercefish wrote: But midi has to be tight, the very few machines that can do tight midi are the Elektrons and MPC's but there are a few others too, sadly though most midi is BANNED timing, especially when coming from a computer, not tight enough for me.

The tightest machine ever though is the Roland MC-4b, pretty much flawlessly robotic :lol:

Oh, dinsync can be split upto over 100 times according to Robin Whittle :!:

when you dont do clocking via audio your dinsync clock is allways as bad as the midi master clock...

I ve done a lot of measurements in the past.. the straightest clock i measured was from an mpc 3000.. even the 808 is not this stable.. however... atari wasnt the best but allways considered good enough as clockmaster for the majority of producers..
the atari has a clock jitter of less than 0,1 ms. a modern pc and macs a few years ago had a clock jitter of 2 ms..
20 times worse !!!

that has canged since maybe 20 month.. now i´ve on a mac via a god midi interface less than 0,15 ms jiiter..

allmost as good as the atari..good enough for the studio..and defetly good enough for stage use..

however.. as said above..

i dont think there is need to abandon the one or the other.. the safings cant be relevant in relation to the functionality missed..

Fiercefish
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 11:43 am

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

Post by Fiercefish »

Totally, seems all us weirdos like our clocks tight!

Normally when using midi (as little as possible, but cannot be totally avoided) I use my MD as a master clock, it is quite tight although not quite as tight as my old mpc3k but good enough.

If I am not using midi I tend to have a dinsync device as the master, I am quite intruiged by that innerclock shiftsync thing, I think it can have a dinsyc as master.

The old ST was really the last computer I used for music in a serious way, I flirted with macs and PCs but in the end gave up on it due to too many headaches, and I can honestly say I doubt I will ever use a computer for music anymore.

But thats just me, that audio unit dinsync thing looks great though, and the expert sleepers stuff looks pretty cool too, but I gotta say I'm pretty happy with my set-up without adding a computer (or much else TBH) I have the Elektrons, some modulars, some 303's, and a few other bits, nice and simple, inspiring and fun to use.

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: i rely on this stuff heavily for my music. EDIT: uploaded example, track mode + shuffled dinsync: http://users.telenet.be/darffader/trackshuf.mp3
interesting experimental stuff.. but i guess thats a bad example why you absolutly need song mode? you could do this by hand...or? or is this more than 2 303´s working there? it defently dont sounds like more than 8 patterns in the chain...
darffader wrote:
How do I get stable dinsync from pc you wonder? I've written software that sends sample-accurate dinsync from the PC audio ports: http://www.rv0.be

thats a cool app.. i did it in the past with a modified nord modular... my audio interface dont has dc enabled ports..damn rme :-(..

thats also one of the reason i am so happy with the new clock stability ... its pretty bad to do such things with a moduar synth that has a little pasue on patch change..had some sound events programmed to cover the gap...

actually ther is nothing bad abut midi when it has a good timing... i enjoy that its so much less trouble now..

however.. nothing can beat the accuracy of the audio clock..

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 »

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.

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.
3phase wrote: .if it would be possible with the xox to chain up to 8 patterns.. and it gets optimissed i a way that turnig the bank knob just plays the next 8 pattern bank..
would this allow you to achive your goals without having a songmode?
no that just wont work. check this for instance: http://www.electrobel.be/mp3/25867.mp3 ... This song already uses half the pattern memory of 303 and chained tracks , and using your method it would well exceed that and i'd have to rewrite all my patterns and reorder them a million times and.. i'd save more time rewriting it all in midi. i might as well abandon all that and use ABL or software clone :( j/k but just try to understand track mode is a very useful feature that I and a lot of friends use all the time. even more than the tap input of time mode (i thought i was the only one using it lol :lol: )

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..

anyway, there is no song mode in antto's firmware so far. so dont worry.. if there's place for track mode it will be added.. i can always remove the code i dont need and add a track mode myself.
there is tripplets and all that stuff you wanted now.. (besides realtime tap input)

ps: i use tap input too all the time but most of my friends look strange at me when i do so;)
3phase wrote:
darffader wrote: i rely on this stuff heavily for my music. EDIT: uploaded example, track mode + shuffled dinsync: http://users.telenet.be/darffader/trackshuf.mp3
interesting experimental stuff.. but i guess thats a bad example why you absolutly need song mode? you could do this by hand...or? or is this more than 2 303´s working there? it defently dont sounds like more than 8 patterns in the chain...
here no, you are right. it's 2 303's, one is just doing something boring.. all clock extremely shuffled ;)
but the order isnt sequential so i'm not sure if 8 patterns would work. but it was

check the track on electrobel posted above.

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

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

Post by Luap »

I must say, I don't find the x0xb0x sequencer bad at all. Actually, I like it! That said, Im very curious to see what you guys come up with for it by way of firmware. Im looking forward to trying it and seeing what differences it makes :wink:
Stock firmware isn't very inspiring. At least not compared to the likes of Sokkos, which im quite fond of.. It will be nice to try out more firmware options!

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

Return to “x0xm0dz”