Two NerdSeqs vs Expanders

[hardnut]

If I'm doing some crazy polyphonic stuff which takes up four tracks of CV, trigger & mod and then wanting to have a few different melodic and drum patterns over the top of that, I'm needing more than the 6 CV tracks of the one NerdSeq I have.

Is it mad to think of having two NerdSeqs running together? Would MIDI be the best way to sync two together (but, if so, I guess I'd need another Midi expander for the 2nd NerdSeq)? Or will clock in/out & reset in/out do the job just fine?

Or would a combination of the More CV and More Triggers expanders get me close to what two NerdSeqs could do?

I'm guessing that expanders being controlled by a single NerdSeq isn't going to be quite as flexible as two NerdSeqs with a total of 12 fully independent CV tracks?

[XORadmin]

I think the best would be using the dinsync or Midi option for both clockwise.
As for functionality..the expanders give you more outputs but not more tracks and not more sample tracks, automators etc. So it definitely depends on your needs. And controlling 2 NerdSEQ live is double the trouble than controlling just one.

So they are pro's and con's and maybe even another sequencer in combination makes sense.

[hardnut]

Thanks for your thoughts Thomas, that's all great to know.

I had thought about using something like an Analog Four MkII to handle polyphonic voices and sequencing too, but I think I get a lot more control of voices and sequencing in Eurorack with NerdSeq.

And whether something like Analog Four or a dedicated sequencer like Squarp Pyramid (or even a Cirklon) I kind of like the idea of doubling-down on one workflow, not having to learn another complex machine, and instead getting really deep into NerdSeq and knowing how to build anything I want quickly.

I don't play live! I'm just building layers of quite complex patterns/pieces up in Eurorack and then recording.

I'll think on it further, but a double NerdSeq set-up is definitely on my mind....!

[joe516]

I run the Nerdseq's midiout into a Verona qMI, which works out well for another 4 tracks of note+2 CVs. You loose one NerdSeq track to midi, but the trade-off is worth it for me. If you send an additional NerdSeq track to a Quadnic, Argos Bleak, etc, you can add 4 note chords. That type of set up give you a total of 12 notes polyphony and 2 tracks sampling without the sync and workflow headaches.

[hardnut]

I run the Nerdseq's midiout into a Verona qMI, which works out well for another 4 tracks of note+2 CVs. You loose one NerdSeq track to midi, but the trade-off is worth it for me. If you send an additional NerdSeq track to a Quadnic, Argos Bleak, etc, you can add 4 note chords. That type of set up give you a total of 12 notes polyphony and 2 tracks sampling without the sync and workflow headaches.

Interesting idea, thanks!

[heyitsme]

I think the best would be using the dinsync or Midi option for both clockwise.
As for functionality..the expanders give you more outputs but not more tracks and not more sample tracks, automators etc. So it definitely depends on your needs. And controlling 2 NerdSEQ live is double the trouble than controlling just one.

So they are pro's and con's and maybe even another sequencer in combination makes sense.

Reviving this old thread as I'm on the same path. I'm currently syncing my Nerdseqs via the analog clock in/output. In my experience syncing works better with analog clocks rather than MIDI, that's why I chose this path. Is there a specific reason why you recommended dinsync or midi option to sync them?

[XORadmin]

I think the best would be using the dinsync or Midi option for both clockwise.
As for functionality..the expanders give you more outputs but not more tracks and not more sample tracks, automators etc. So it definitely depends on your needs. And controlling 2 NerdSEQ live is double the trouble than controlling just one.

So they are pro's and con's and maybe even another sequencer in combination makes sense.

Reviving this old thread as I'm on the same path. I'm currently syncing my Nerdseqs via the analog clock in/output. In my experience syncing works better with analog clocks rather than MIDI, that's why I chose this path. Is there a specific reason why you recommended dinsync or midi option to sync them?

Basically with the 1/16 clock the real bpm and speed need to be calculated and approximated with every clock. That is not needed with dinsync or midi.
Midi just sends what is needed + if you use SPP you can synchronize also the pattern rows which makes it easier to make music with more tracks and 2 devices.

[heyitsme]

Oh, that last part is very important indeed. I will definitely sync with MIDI then. Would be quite tedious to program without syncronizing the pattern rows.