From feed@maroon.tc.umn.edu Mon Apr 8 08:33:30 1996 8 Apr 96 11:33:26 +0500 8 Apr 96 01:57:08 +0500 From: "fEEd" Subject: Re: analogue V1 #992-Doepfer Cc: map@cs.washington.edu Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 00:51:22 X-Tick-Nemesis: Chairface Chippendale On Sun, 7 Apr 1996 13:06:16 -0500, dvorkinm@pcs.mot.com wrote... >How does MAQ16 stack up against let's say Arp sequencer? You had to put me on the spot didn't you? You want me to compare my 2 fave sequencers? ;> That is a tough one, i guess i should have thought a little bit before i said the MAQ was "the best". The ARP is hard to beat cv\gate-wise that is for sure. What does the MAQ do that the ARP can't? The obvious thing is MIDI. Being able to have all 3 of the rows of the MAQ run at differnt speeds (all synced to the MIDI clock) in different modes with different lengths of sequences all interacting with one another is quite amazing. Want to have 1 row do the notes and the next one do the velocities? No prob. Want to have one row change the MIDI channel another is sending on? sure, what the heck. Not only can the MAQ run things via MIDI, the controlability OF the MAQ via MIDI is intense. You can control literally every function on the MAQ from MIDI controllers and pgm changes. Want the MAQ to switch 1 row from a random seq to a simple forward stepping one at exactly the right time? Sequence it right out. No little switch to try to flip at exactly the right time like on the ARP. BTW, I am in the final stages of putting together a Logic environment that lays out all of the control you can have over the MAQ in case anyone is interested. CV\gate wise? Well, the MAQ is a bit vanilla i guess. 6 cv\gate outputs, few surprises here. Some of the cool things you can do with MIDI on the MAQ is lost in the cv-out potrion of it. For example, you can still transpose the cvs going out of the MAQ by MIDI notes going into it if the row is one of the "relative" modes, but the setting at which one row can transpose another row internally seems to have no effect on the cv outputs, only the MIDI notes. I usually end up running the MAQ's MIDI through the pro4 so i can use its modulation abilities to spice the cv up a bit and have the advantage of all the pro4s outputs and perks (like being able to turn portamento on if i want to). What does the ARP have going for it? Well the most obvious thing is the gate bus system. To me, that is the whole key behind the ARP sequencer being such a joy to use. For those of you unfamilair with the ARP seq, it has a 3 position switch above each step of the seq which decides which of 3 gate outputs that step is gonna put a trig out on. No stupid 3 digit display and 8 ambiguous buttons like on the often-confusing MAQ. I am very surprised that more analog sequencers did not put this sort of implementation to use, are there any others? Another obvious advantage is that the ARP has alot more cv options than the MAQ, both in and out. While the MAQ is simple cv\gate out pairs, the ARP has: Gate bus 1 out Gate bus 2 out Gate bus 3 out Position 1 out Clocked Gate out Start trig in reset trig in Step Trig in Stop trig in Start\stop in Footswitch out Clock Out Clock FM in PWM in Quantized Output A and B CV input (for transposing) Input A and B (for running extneral CVs through the quantisers) Sequencer output A and B (unquantized) 4 Multiples So as you can see, the ARP is much better suited up for interfacing with other cv-ready gear. The only input on the MAQ is via MIDI and as i discussed before some of the incoming MIDI data is lost on the CV gate outputs. All in all i have to say i use the MAQ more compositionally. The lines i can come up with on that thing are like no other. It is unlimited what i can use it with, MIDI or not. The modulation between the rows (sequences) on the MAQ is what i find most useful, especially when they run at different speeds and lengths. I can also dump its output and edit it down in logic quite nicely and still sendout through the pro4 to get to my cv stuff. With all the cv-patchability fo the ARP, i find myself using it more in the middle of complex patches as a mod\trig source than as a sequencer in the conventional sense. It usually ends up tangled in the middle of a synthi\2 voice\eml100 patch that has me thoroughly confused about 2 hours into it. ;> Please don't make me choose! Rob - excuse the typos, I am in a perpetual hurry http://www.umn.edu/nlhome/m211/feed/ (new songs, new pics, same old crap) "The patch in fig. 2-23 gives the sound of a cracking whip. (Why don't you try to synthesize some screams to go along with it?)" - Roland Model 104 Sequencer Manual