+- XOR Userforum (https://forum.xor.eu)
+-- Forum: Products (https://forum.xor.eu/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: NerdSEQ (https://forum.xor.eu/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+---- Forum: General Questions (https://forum.xor.eu/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+---- Thread: Accumulate, Metropolix style? (/showthread.php?tid=1075)
RE: Accumulate, Metropolix style? - mgd - 04-04-2021
I now had a closer look at the Metropolix and the Accumulate function.
AFAIC concerned the NerdSEQ has all of it already and much more. All you can do with Accumulate can be done via Tables as described earlier in this thread. Tables actually give you a lot more than you get from Accumulate. You can also emulate it with the new ADD/SUB/MULT/DIV FX (that may lack a kind of modulo functionality but if so can probably be added later).
The only thing I liked is the direct access to lots of pattern parameters via sliders. Differing from loopop I do think 8 stages with up to 64 steps (and 1 and 1/2 tracks) in total is a severe limitation. If that is enough for you, then Metropolix may be a fine tool.
I work differently and would not buy a Metropolix if the price were 200€.
Kind regards,
Michael
RE: Accumulate, Metropolix style? - mvdirty - 04-04-2021
(04-02-2021, 07:23 PM)mgd Wrote: I just diagonally read the current Metropolix manual and especially the parts on accumulation. AFAICT the above sketched table does all you could possibly do with accumulation, possibly it is even more versatile.
I wish I didn’t have to be so blunt about this, but just to head this off at the pass so that people don’t misunderstand either what Metropolix or NerdSEQ can do in this area: there is no way the sketched table can do what accumulate does. There is, quite simply, not enough state management in place to do it.
And just in case it wasn’t clear before: I own both.
It might help people interested in seeing what accumulate can do to watch Loopop’s review video, and maybe also the 1.1 firmware update video on the Intellijel channel (though I would advise against anyone watching _only_ that one. Consider it an optional add-on video.
) There are likely some even newer videos of people going through that functionality with greater focus than Loopop did, but I’ve not had occasion to search.
RE: Accumulate, Metropolix style? - XORadmin - 04-04-2021
Yeah I looked into it and I agree that the accumulate functions are not possible like this with the current NerdSEQ functions. And i doubt it will be in the future. As i see it, this seems to be a possible thing for one sequence/loop and they are not many states to save here. But to have like for every possible note in every pattern a kind of counter which keeps the state of the last accumulation...well double the memory I‘d say.
I see the fun of it for sure, but getting this done even within only a loop would mean some menu diving and that is something I want to avoid. I guess you could get parts of it using combinations with tables and maybe the add/sub functions.
It‘s interesting for sure...
RE: Accumulate, Metropolix style? - mgd - 04-04-2021
While the accumulate function isn't replicated it's net effect is, at least for the most obvious use cases, i.e. adding/subtracting a value to a step in a given sequence on each round. After all this particular part of accumulate is nothing but a special form of arpeggio on the given note. And for that tables are well suited.
Kind regards,
Michael
RE: Accumulate, Metropolix style? - mvdirty - 04-04-2021
For what it is worth, mgd has prompted me to dig a little further into the details on both sides and, while the limits I expected are still largely in place, they’re actually not quite as severe as I had first judged them to be, and some of the limitations are offset by things only the NerdSEQ can do. Is one more capable than the other in this area? Though Metropolix still likely has the edge, they’re certainly different in terms of approach, pros and cons, and each would shine in different areas.
I’m long overdue to spend more time with some of the related functionality in both modules, and as luck would have it am booked off work for a few days next week to decompress a bit and spend some time making music. Catching up on Metropolix 1.1 is definitely on the list, so while I do that I’ll try to determine the NerdSEQ “way” for as many of those things as I can, and will report back here if I discover anything particularly interesting that could turn into, for example, a sensible NerdSEQ feature request.
RE: Accumulate, Metropolix style? - mgd - 04-05-2021
In the wake of the very interesting conversation with mvdirty I have created a MWE to show Accumulate by means of tables. See the attached project created with V1.24 RC11.
This project shows a couple of peculiarities. Let me start by explaining what I'm trying to achieve followed by my observations.
- I have a 4 note sequence (C-6, C-6, C-6, B-5).
- There are 3 tables, all set SOURCE PTN-SFX, TYPE >LOOP, LENGTH 1
- Table 00 does nothing
- Table 01 is 8 steps long and applies increasing (by semitones) transposition up (from 0 to 5th up)
- Table 02 is 7 steps long and applies increasing (by full tones) transposition down (from 0 to octave down)
What happens is quite different:
- The initial (unchanged) sequence is played twice before the tables start to change the notes. To me this looks like an initialization issue of the table clock.
- The HP 00 in lines 09 and 08 respectively seem to be ignored. Both tables 01 and 02 loop over the full 16 steps. Is that intentional?
Kind regards,
Michael
RE: Accumulate, Metropolix style? - XORadmin - 04-06-2021
(04-05-2021, 08:56 AM)mgd Wrote: In the wake of the very interesting conversation with mvdirty I have created a MWE to show Accumulate by means of tables. See the attached project created with V1.24 RC11.
This project shows a couple of peculiarities. Let me start by explaining what I'm trying to achieve followed by my observations.What I expect is that initially the above 4 note sequence plays as is and on each following round notes 2 and 3 will be changed by tables 01 and 02 respectively. Since the tables are 7 and 8 steps long I would expect to have 56 (7*8) different versions of the 4 note sequence and the 57th round being the same as the first round.
- I have a 4 note sequence (C-6, C-6, C-6, B-5).
- There are 3 tables, all set SOURCE PTN-SFX, TYPE >LOOP, LENGTH 1
- Table 00 does nothing
- Table 01 is 8 steps long and applies increasing (by semitones) transposition up (from 0 to 5th up)
- Table 02 is 7 steps long and applies increasing (by full tones) transposition down (from 0 to octave down)
What happens is quite different:I also observed that the setting of SOURCE and TYPE of the 3 tables is not independent of each other. In particular when I set Table 00 to e.g. INT.Tick then all tables run at INT.Tick (or so it seems). Similar with TYPE. When I set Table 00 to Type >RESYNCH I only hear the unchanged sequence regardless how often I loop it (tried at least 50 or so rounds; no change). Is that intentional?
- The initial (unchanged) sequence is played twice before the tables start to change the notes. To me this looks like an initialization issue of the table clock.
- The HP 00 in lines 09 and 08 respectively seem to be ignored. Both tables 01 and 02 loop over the full 16 steps. Is that intentional?
Kind regards,
Michael
The setup of your table doesn't match your expectations.
In your sequence you always switch between the tables every 4 steps and end up on step 12 to table 00. So the first 4 steps table 00 is playing, next 4 steps table 01, next 4 steps table 02 and the last 4 steps table 00, which you increase then by 1 table step. With the table step increments always table 00 is playing and so the Hops from the other tables are never executed.
In my opinion the tables are running correctly here.
RE: Accumulate, Metropolix style? - mgd - 04-06-2021
Your description as to what should be happening according to my setup is not what actually does happen.
When I play the project as attached above this is what happens:
Round 1: C-6, C-6, C-6, B-5
Round 2: C-6, C-6, C-6, B-5
Round 3: C-6, C#6, A#5, B-5
Round 4: C-6, D-6, G#5, B-5
Round 5: C-6, D#6, F#5, B-5
Round 6: C-6, E-6, E-5, B-5
Round 7: C-6, F-6, D-5, B-5
Round 8: C-6, F#6, C-5, B-5
Round 9: C-6, G-6, C-6, B-5
Round 10: C-6, C-6, C-6, B-5
Round 11: C-6, C-6, C-6, B-5
Round 12: C-6, C-6, C-6, B-5
Round 13: C-6, C-6, C-6, B-5
Round 14: C-6, C-6, C-6, B-5
Round 15: C-6, C-6, C-6, B-5
Round 16: C-6, C-6, C-6, B-5
Round 17: C-6, C-6, C-6, B-5
Round 18 (==2): C-6, C-6, C-6, B-5
Round 19 (==3): C-6, C#6, A#5, B-5
Round 20 (==4): C-6, D-6, G#5, B-5
Round 21 (==5): C-6, D#6, F#5, B-5
etc.
So apparently tables 01 and 02 ARE moved forward.
I tried to insert SPFX 011 while tables 01 and 02 were playing and removed the SPFX 011 at the end. That results in table 01 and 02 skipping every other step. The HP 00 is still not executed.
Are you really sure the project does what it should and that the tables are indeed working correctly?
How could I make the HP 00 in table 01 and 02 to get executed?
From what I see any SPFX 011 moves tables 01 and 02 forward no matter what. I do suppose the same is true for table 00 but since that does nothing I can't tell.
[I want an SPFX 011 that specifically targets a table and possibly incr/decr the current position in the table by more than 1, but that is for a feature request once I'm more comfortable with the tables.]
Kind regards,
Michael
RE: Accumulate, Metropolix style? - XORadmin - 04-06-2021
(04-06-2021, 10:52 AM)mgd Wrote: Your description as to what should be happening according to my setup is not what actually does happen.
When I play the project as attached above this is what happens:
Round 1: C-6, C-6, C-6, B-5
Round 2: C-6, C-6, C-6, B-5
Round 3: C-6, C#6, A#5, B-5
Round 4: C-6, D-6, G#5, B-5
Round 5: C-6, D#6, F#5, B-5
Round 6: C-6, E-6, E-5, B-5
Round 7: C-6, F-6, D-5, B-5
Round 8: C-6, F#6, C-5, B-5
Round 9: C-6, G-6, C-6, B-5
Round 10: C-6, C-6, C-6, B-5
Round 11: C-6, C-6, C-6, B-5
Round 12: C-6, C-6, C-6, B-5
Round 13: C-6, C-6, C-6, B-5
Round 14: C-6, C-6, C-6, B-5
Round 15: C-6, C-6, C-6, B-5
Round 16: C-6, C-6, C-6, B-5
Round 17: C-6, C-6, C-6, B-5
Round 18 (==2): C-6, C-6, C-6, B-5
Round 19 (==3): C-6, C#6, A#5, B-5
Round 20 (==4): C-6, D-6, G#5, B-5
Round 21 (==5): C-6, D#6, F#5, B-5
etc.
So apparently tables 01 and 02 ARE moved forward.
I tried to insert SPFX 011 while tables 01 and 02 were playing and removed the SPFX 011 at the end. That results in table 01 and 02 skipping every other step. The HP 00 is still not executed.
Are you really sure the project does what it should and that the tables are indeed working correctly?
How could I make the HP 00 in table 01 and 02 to get executed?
From what I see any SPFX 011 moves tables 01 and 02 forward no matter what. I do suppose the same is true for table 00 but since that does nothing I can't tell.
[I want an SPFX 011 that specifically targets a table and possibly incr/decr the current position in the table by more than 1, but that is for a feature request once I'm more comfortable with the tables.]
Kind regards,
Michael
When table 00 is for expample set to Table Step 3 and you switch to Table 01, then 01 is also on step 03 if in loop mode (or step 0 if resync). There is no own table counter for each possible table in each track. So the behaviour here is right. No HOP is executed because always the SPFX 011 is happening when table 00 is active.
RE: Accumulate, Metropolix style? - mgd - 04-06-2021
(04-06-2021, 11:06 AM)XORadmin Wrote:(04-06-2021, 10:52 AM)mgd Wrote: I tried to insert SPFX 011 while tables 01 and 02 were playing and removed the SPFX 011 at the end. That results in table 01 and 02 skipping every other step. The HP 00 is still not executed.
Are you really sure the project does what it should and that the tables are indeed working correctly?
How could I make the HP 00 in table 01 and 02 to get executed?
From what I see any SPFX 011 moves tables 01 and 02 forward no matter what. I do suppose the same is true for table 00 but since that does nothing I can't tell.
[I want an SPFX 011 that specifically targets a table and possibly incr/decr the current position in the table by more than 1, but that is for a feature request once I'm more comfortable with the tables.]
Kind regards,
Michael
When table 00 is for expample set to Table Step 3 and you switch to Table 01, then 01 is also on step 03 if in loop mode (or step 0 if resync). There is no own table counter for each possible table in each track. So the behaviour here is right. No HOP is executed because always the SPFX 011 is happening when table 00 is active.
Have you actually tried to run the project?
Also may I point you towards a test I made:
(04-06-2021, 10:52 AM)mgd Wrote: I tried to insert SPFX 011 while tables 01 and 02 were playing and removed the SPFX 011 at the end. That results in table 01 and 02 skipping every other step. The HP 00 is still not executed (at least not that I realized it)
I'm not sure that what I do is correct, but the tables don't behave the way you describe they should
... or I simply don't understand you.To be clear:
I think they almost behave the way I expect them to. My only issues are that
- HP 00 is not executed and I have found no way to do so
- the initial setting of the tables is executed twice, i.e. it seems the first SPFX 011 initializes all position pointer (or however you call them) to 0 and thus results in table position 0 being executed twice
- all tables set to SOURCE PTN-SFX share a position pointer, i.e. they are not "moved"/played independently [I would want them independent --> possibly feature request material; required for Accumulate like functions via tables and useful for all sorts of generative music]
- HP 00 [possibly HP in general but I have not tested that] is ignored for tables set to SOURCE PTN-SFX
Basically I wish to understand what's happening and why
Update: As an afterthought:
What triggers the execution of a HP?
Let's say there is a HP 00 on step 03 of the table. Is it executed upon executing/playing step 03 or is it executed when that table is active and plays step 02 and then a SPFX 011 happens?
Kind regards,
Michael