The Best Sequencer... recommendations?
Dale McFarland
keyboards to use as a controller. Price is not the primary
consideration, but rather, ease of use and RELIABILITY.
It's been a while since I've done any research on current technology, so
any direction/suggestions will be appreciated.
Thanks,
Dale
LinnaMink
Look at the Yamaha RM1x or QY700. And the Roland MC80. I'm sure there are other
choices. I love my RM1x.
Linna
members.tripod.com/NeoGirl
*********************************
ESH
> Preferably stand-alone desktop style, since I already have several
> keyboards to use as a controller. Price is not the primary
> consideration, but rather, ease of use and RELIABILITY.
>
> It's been a while since I've done any research on current technology, so
> any direction/suggestions will be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Dale
The best sequencer is a computer. The simple reason is because
stand-alone sequencers generally have a limited clock-rate, storage
capacity, etc. Also they haven't progressed much technologically in many
years. It's hard for any hardware sequencer to compare to even PG Music's
$29 Power Tracks Pro (http://www.pgmusic.com/). Since you're posting on the
web, you'd find that an inexpensive midi interface and sequencer package
would be far better than a hardware sequencer.
Esh
http://keyboardwizard.homepage.com/
Greg Abrams
"ESH" <e...@NOSPAMcetlink.net> wrote in message
news:38CE43DA...@NOSPAMcetlink.net...
> The best sequencer is a computer. The simple reason is because
> stand-alone sequencers generally have a limited clock-rate, storage
> capacity, etc. Also they haven't progressed much technologically in many
> web, you'd find that an inexpensive midi interface and sequencer package
> would be far better than a hardware sequencer.
That depends entirely on the application... if someone needs a sequencer
that is ultra-portable, wants to use it for live work, etc., hardware
sequencers can be ideal. I've used both, and there are times that the
hardware solution is the best way to go. Not to mention, the boot time is
less than 1 second.
Greg
fvic...@my-deja.com
What do you want to do with it exactly? Are you going to use it at
gigs or will it be used for studio work? There are a wide range of
both hardware and software sequencers out there.
For hardware sequencers, I'm partial to the MPC series. The MPC3000 is
great with 4 midi outputs and also contains a sampler to play back
sampled loops and drum hits. It sounds great but is a little pricey.
You can go with the MPC2000XL which has a few newer features over the
MPC3000 but 2 midi outputs instead of one. You can load up 32 MB worth
of samples in the MPC2KXL and, I believe you're limited to 16 MB on the
MPC3K. However, the MPC3K is the last MPC that was developed with
Roger Linn. Many people say that the MPC2KXL's feel is not the same
(or as good). I find the MPC2KXL's feel very good, though I have not
compared it side by side to the MPC3K. If you don't care to load
sounds into the sequencer, you may be able to find a used ASQ-10 (???)
which was Akai's MPC-60 sequencer without the drum sampler.
For software sequencers, I prefer Emagic's Logic Audio. However,
pretty much most of the software sequencers do the same things and are
very powerful allowing you to have sequenced midi tracks playing along
with audio tracks as well. Each has their own set of special unique
features, but for regular sequencing, most do the same thing. Keyboard
magazine has a back issue that discussed some of the main software
sequencers and compared them. The main benefit of software sequencers
is that you can view them on a large monitor on your computer. Editing
features are more robust than on the hardware sequencers and, typically
it is easier on the eyes. They are not as portable unless you don't
mind carrying around a laptop to your gigs. Hardware sequencers don't
necessarily make it look to people (who aren't musicians) like you've
got sequences going.
Oh well, I suggest that you check out some of each at your local music
stores to decide what will work best for you.
HTH,
Fernando
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
el...@westworld.com
> The best sequencer is a computer. The simple reason is because
> stand-alone sequencers generally have a limited clock-rate, storage
> capacity, etc.
Really... The Yamaha QY-700 has a 480ppq clock rate. Most hardware
sequencer users make dance music, which doesn't rely on clock
resolution very much.
>Also they haven't progressed much technologically in many
>years.
They can hold so much more note data than back in the 80s, when
hardware sequencers were the norm. And floppy drives are standard,
unlike back then.
>It's hard for any hardware sequencer to compare to even PG Music's
> $29 Power Tracks Pro (http://www.pgmusic.com/).
Power Tracks Pro? Be very quiet, people will laugh at you.
Since you're posting on the
> web, you'd find that an inexpensive midi interface and sequencer
package
> would be far better than a hardware sequencer.
It all depends. don't get me worng, I have a computer and a software
sequencer in my home studio, but hardware sequencers are ideal for live
performances, and I would never dare take my computer onstage. Are
software sequencers more functional and powerful than hardware
sequencers? Of course they are. But that doesn't mean they lack any
value.
Elson
LinnaMink
<< The best sequencer is a computer. The simple reason is because
stand-alone sequencers generally have a limited clock-rate, storage
capacity, etc. Also they haven't progressed much technologically in many
years.>>
I disagree. I suspect you just don't know that much about hardware sequencers.
The RM1x has a note resolution of 480 ppqn (as does the QY700) and I think the
MC80 is a bit higher. Some musicians prefer hardware sequencers because of
timing. I got the RM1x partly for its timing... I do a lot of fast, complex
breaks. Also, how long is "many years"? You mean the QY700 isnt that much
better than whatever Yamaha was making in the late 1980's?
Ive only ever used hardware. I'd like to try Cubase some day but Im happy with
what Ive got. (And Ive got a laptop as my main computer so it's not like I
couldnt perform wit that). Everyone's got their own preference, but they should
back up their opinions with facts.
Linna
members.tripod.com/NeoGirl
*********************************
David Mason
linn...@aol.com (LinnaMink) writes:
> I disagree. I suspect you just don't know that much about hardware sequencers
and:
> Ive only ever used hardware. I'd like to try Cubase some day but Im happy
>with what Ive got.
Then surely you are falling foul of your own argument. If you've never used
something like Cubase, then how can you make an objective judgement? Having
used both, I can see that they both perform better in certain circumstances.
I would never want to take a PC into a sweaty club, and I would never use a
hardware sequencer in the studio. You can't effortlessly pencil in extremely
complicated controller data at a screen resolution of 1024 X 768 on a
hardware sequencer, but you can't stick a computer in the back of the van
and have everything ready to go at the flick of a switch at the gig. Both have
more than accurate enough timing these days, so I don't really see how that's
an issue. To me, the trade off is between functionality and portability /
reliability. They are designed for different markets altogether.
Dave
--
----------------------------------------------------------
| |
| My new trance mix, 'Europa' is now available at |
| http://www.besonic.com/madmagnus |
| |
| StudioHeadz - check out MadMagnus' Studio Resources at |
| http://www.madmagnus.freeserve.co.uk |
| |
----------------------------------------------------------
casema
program chords and stuff onto one midi-channel??
Olaf
fvic...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8am7ln$87h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
LinnaMink
>linn...@aol.com (LinnaMink) writes:
>> I disagree. I suspect you just don't know that much about hardware
sequencers
>and:
>> Ive only ever used hardware. I'd like to try Cubase some day but Im happy
>>with what Ive got.
>Then surely you are falling foul of your own >argument. If you've never used
>something like Cubase, then how can you make an >objective judgement?
Actually, no. I wasn't arguing hardware vs software sequencers...that's frankly
an argument I wouldn't get into. I was only disputing the opinions of the
previous poster who stated that hardware sequencers had inferior timing and
hadn't progressed in many years. I was disputing his command of the "facts" and
asking him to back them up. I still do. Hey, if he's right....
Otherwise, what do I care? This is how flame wars get started. However, one
reason I dont use software sequencers, is that I already work on computers and
don't want to spend too much more time on them.
Cheers,
Linna
members.tripod.com/NeoGirl
*********************************
fvic...@my-deja.com
In article <8ap2kj$fe0$1...@newsspool.casema.net>,
"casema" <mol...@dds.nl> wrote:
> isn't the MPC2000XL's sequencer more of a rythm-sequencer? how easy
is it to
> program chords and stuff onto one midi-channel??
>
Well, it's easy. The MPC2KXL supports 32 midi channels externally (ie,
it can control 32 different parts) and supports 4 midi channels
internally. What I mean here is that you can have 4 separate MPC
programs being used at the same time in a sequence. You can have 32
separate sounds on external modules being controlled by the MPC in a
sequence at the same time.
Programming chords has nothing to do with one midi channel. Many
chords *are* programmed onto one midi channel per part. You're not
going to split up a piano part into different midi channels for
different midi notes.
I don't know what you mean by your comment. The MPC is quite capable
of keeping up with the computer-based sequencers. Where it is
different and lacking is the screen and the timing resolution.
However, the MPC sounds tight and every bit as tight as my computer
sequencer.
timlle...@my-deja.com
linn...@aol.com (LinnaMink) wrote:
> <<Preferably stand-alone desktop style, since I already have several
> keyboards to use as a controller. Price is not the primary
> consideration, but rather, ease of use and RELIABILITY.
>
> It's been a while since I've done any research on current technology,
so
> any direction/suggestions will be appreciated.>>
>
are other
> choices. I love my RM1x.
>
laptop, but since Monday I have had an MC80. Its the only one that
offered hands free control of song structure in realtime as far
as I could see (I am a guitarist, want to do this in a live
situation).
I am currently struglling trying to load a firmware revision as last
night I managed to choke it with MIDI while jamming with the GM demo
supplied (I was hitting it with a LOT of data but it shouldn't do
this surely). Anyway, I'm hoping once I get the new OS firmware loaded
things will improve. It is very tight timing until some threshold.
and I am starting to really
like the touch-tracks type phrase sequencer, and its good news OS
updates can be downloaded, transfered to floppy and loaded (in theory,
it ain't working for me tonite),
Regards
casema
midi channel 1) into an MPC2kxl track?? on my rm1x or software sequencer
it's just a case of pressing record and playing the 3 notes at one.....how
is this done with the MPC? are the pads assigned to different notes and can
i just press 3 pads at once??
Olaf
fvic...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8aq1bd$1vj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Brains
> However, one reason I dont use software sequencers, is that I already
> work on computers and don't want to spend too much more time on them.
Good on ya - whilst I've got software sequencers in my studio, I treat
them just like I would a multitrack tape recorder. Everything is set up
to be controlled by button presses or key presses (the buttons aren't
on-screen ones, but an old Finale "Presto" keyboard I've hacked to
control some otherwise-mouse-only functions with a scripting program).
If I have to reach for a mouse whilst I'm composing, my muse loses
itself faster than a dollar in Bill gates' bank account.
I know one chap (he demo's gear for an Australian distributor) who uses
nothing but MotU's "Freestyle" because he can control *every* function
in the program by playing different chords on his controller.
Sometimes using a computer in music is *not* a good idea.
Brains
-- ---------------q-u-a-n-t-i-c-@-i-n-a-m-e-.-c-o-m------------------ --
"If there was a problem, he would just come unglued and start hollering.
I never knew whether to spank him or fire him." -- Ed Roberts (founder
of MITS, inventor of the Altair 8800) on former employee Bill Gates
LinnaMink
laptop, but since Monday I have had an MC80. Its the only one that
offered hands free control of song structure in realtime as far
as I could see (I am a guitarist, want to do this in a live
situation).>>
Cool! I like the MC80. Good luck!
Linna
members.tripod.com/NeoGirl
*********************************
fvic...@my-deja.com
you wrote,
> what i asked was: how easy is it to enter chords (f.e. a 3 note chord
on
> midi channel 1) into an MPC2kxl track?? on my rm1x or software
sequencer
> it's just a case of pressing record and playing the 3 notes at
one.....how
> is this done with the MPC? are the pads assigned to different notes
and can
> i just press 3 pads at once??
>
Well, if you are using your MPC to record a 3-note chord, you would
need to press the 3 pads at once. But, in this case, you are using it
a little differently than how it is intended. The pads are basically
intended for drums and hits. For sequencing those, it works great. If
you have a keyboard connected to the MPC, it is simply a matter of
pressing record and playing the 3 notes on the keyboard at once. You
do not have to use the MPC to play the chord. I'm assuming that you
used a keyboard to play the chord into your computer sequencer or into
the rm1x.
The MPC is great to sequence on. I must admit that I use the computer
quite a bit. However, I've done some sequencing on the MPC and it
works fine. The computer gives you more flexible options for editing.
bob...@my-deja.com
removeallthis...@bigfoot.com (Brains) wrote:
> LinnaMink <linn...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > However, one reason I dont use software sequencers, is that I already
> > work on computers and don't want to spend too much more time on them.
>
> Good on ya - whilst I've got software sequencers in my studio, I treat
> them just like I would a multitrack tape recorder. Everything is set up
> to be controlled by button presses or key presses (the buttons aren't
> on-screen ones, but an old Finale "Presto" keyboard I've hacked to
> control some otherwise-mouse-only functions with a scripting program).
> If I have to reach for a mouse whilst I'm composing, my muse loses
> itself faster than a dollar in Bill gates' bank account.
>
> I know one chap (he demo's gear for an Australian distributor) who uses
> nothing but MotU's "Freestyle" because he can control *every* function
> in the program by playing different chords on his controller.
>
> Sometimes using a computer in music is *not* a good idea.
>
> Brains
>
Bob Dey
timlle...@my-deja.com
linn...@aol.com (LinnaMink) wrote:
> ESH e...@NOSPAMcetlink.net writes:
>
> << The best sequencer is a computer. The simple reason is because
> stand-alone sequencers generally have a limited clock-rate, storage
> capacity, etc. Also they haven't progressed much technologically in
many
> years.>>
>
> The RM1x has a note resolution of 480 ppqn (as does the QY700) and I
think the
> MC80 is a bit higher.
No, MC80 is 480 ppqn too. This is definitely adequate.
>Some musicians prefer hardware sequencers
because of
> timing. I got the RM1x partly for its timing... I do a lot of fast,
complex
Yup, I considered the RM1x but it didn't appear to have realtime
MIDI control via footswitches, so I got MC 80 instead. btw, firmware
1.10 now loaded.
> breaks. Also, how long is "many years"? You mean the QY700 isnt that
much
> better than whatever Yamaha was making in the late 1980's?
>
> Ive only ever used hardware. I'd like to try Cubase some day but Im
happy with
> what Ive got. (And Ive got a laptop as my main computer so it's not
like I
> couldnt perform wit that). Everyone's got their own preference, but
they should
> back up their opinions with facts.
I have Logic AUdio Platinum and have used Emagic since C-Lab days
(If that makes any sense) and will probably not be doing much
real track laying with the MC80, more like using it as a glorified
realtime arranging tool.
With the RM1x or the QY700, can you edit while the song is playing?
I must admit, the MC80's QY10 like behaviour in this respect I'd
find irritating in extended use. Turn on editor, playback stops,
not quite what I want. Also, why can't the damn thing loop a pattern.
Oh well,
>
> Linna
> members.tripod.com/NeoGirl
>
> *********************************
timlle...@my-deja.com
linn...@aol.com (LinnaMink) wrote:
> <<I did, and the Akai MC2000, and also thought hard about Logic on a
> laptop, but since Monday I have had an MC80. Its the only one that
> offered hands free control of song structure in realtime as far
> as I could see (I am a guitarist, want to do this in a live
> situation).>>
>
> Cool! I like the MC80. Good luck!
>
So, do you use one at all?
From other posts it sounds to me you have an Rm1X?
Can you trigger a sequence with a single note on that?
Regards
LinnaMink
>
>From other posts it sounds to me you have an Rm1X?
>
>Can you trigger a sequence with a single note on that?
No, I don't use an MC80. While I'm impressed with them my only real midi
sequencer is my Rm1x. I do have an MC202, but that's something else.
In the Rm1x, I use it in pattern mode which gives me a choice of 16 patterns
within each song (OK, its a "style", whatever). You trigger one of the patterns
by hitting one key on the keyboard. And you jump to the next this way. Each
consists of 16 midi trax which can be muted. I grew up on drummachines, so I
work this way.
I think maybe the pattern chain mode functions more like Roland's RPS or
megamix but I havent used it so I don't know.
The Rm1x does have a footswitch jack. Haven't used it...I assume you can
trigger sequences that way.
Linna
members.tripod.com/NeoGirl
*********************************
LinnaMink
On the Rm1x, no. Its got an edit mode in which you can edit each track while it
is playing. But to go into it, you have to stop playback first. So you can't
edit while you are performing. That's just sequences tho, you can edit the
sounds, effects, play fx and midi delay in real time while performing.
>I must admit, the MC80's QY10 like behaviour in this respect I'd
>find irritating in extended use. Turn on editor, playback stops,
>not quite what I want. Also, why can't the damn thing loop a pattern.
Don't know. Its my impression the MC80 is more song-based than pattern-based. I
would have looked more at it, but I was sold on the Rm1x cuz of its internal
sounds, interface and price. The Rm1x loops, the whole thing is built around
looped patterns. There are a few things that annoyed me about it, but I found
when I learned how it worked and how to fix some things, they went away.
Linna
members.tripod.com/NeoGirl
*********************************
George
would highly recommend the as-of-yet unreleased PC version of MTV
Music Generator by Codemasters. The name might scare some people, but
rest-assured that MTV had absolutely no impact on the actual design of
this program. It was originally titled Music 2000 and came out on the
European PlayStation last year. It was re-titled MTV Music Generator
for it's American release, most likely for marketing purposes, but it
is the exact same program.
I've had the PlayStation version of this program for a couple of
months now, and while the preset sampled sound library is nothing to
write home about, the sequencing and sample-editing functions of this
program are brilliant. I wouldn't use the PlayStation version for
writing serious music, but the PC version is going to have MIDI
support, along with the aforementioned user-friendy sequencing and
sample-manipulation engines -- this is going to make the program a
truly powerful loop-based music-creation tool, in my opinion, because
it will allow you to use your own gear instead of relying on the
preset samples of the PlayStation version. At $30
(http://www.ebworld.com), it's going to be quite a bargain for what
you get.
developer21
had my 'american' playstation modified to be able to play euro cd's ....
damn thing still didn't work.
anyone want a copy of the euro release of Music for playstation? email me
an offer. i've got no use for this cd.
-developer21
http://www.mp3.com/developer21
George wrote:
--
-developer21
latest tracks available at:
http://www.mp3.com/developer21