so, uhhh.....

  Ghostbusters III said:

  Prof. Winston P.Caullier said:

i think the RS7000 is a much more down to earth loop sequencer - like the MPC's

 

great for dance music and techno

 

i'd still go for a qy700 myself because you've got a lot of features, a better screen, etc. it's what squarepusher did (/does?) most of his programming with

 

i think they probably are 75% the same machine underneath tho

 

does the qy700 have grid record mode with a chase light going across the step buttons?

are you assuming the rs7000 does or do you know it does? i own a rm1x which is pretty much the same piece of kit except the rs has sampling. same interface , similar operating system from what i've heard. while the rm1x has grid record, the cursor does NOT follow your pattern. choose wisely. i would not lay down the money for an rs.

if i had other hardware i'd def go for that qy cause it sounds dope. right now i'm leaning towards an mpc. cause that's all i'll ever need besides a couple synths for sampling.

  YEK said:

  Ghostbusters III said:

  Prof. Winston P.Caullier said:

i think the RS7000 is a much more down to earth loop sequencer - like the MPC's

 

great for dance music and techno

 

i'd still go for a qy700 myself because you've got a lot of features, a better screen, etc. it's what squarepusher did (/does?) most of his programming with

 

i think they probably are 75% the same machine underneath tho

 

does the qy700 have grid record mode with a chase light going across the step buttons?

 

are you assuming the rs7000 does or do you know it does? i own a rm1x which is pretty much the same piece of kit except the rs has sampling. same interface , similar operating system from what i've heard. while the rm1x has grid record, the cursor does NOT follow your pattern. choose wisely. i would not lay down the money for an rs.

if i had other hardware i'd def go for that qy cause it sounds dope. right now i'm leaning towards an mpc. cause that's all i'll ever need besides a couple synths for sampling.

im certain the the RS7000 has the type of grid sequencing i want (whilst utilizing the same grid to do 32nd, 32nd triplet, 64th, 64th triplent, 128th, 128th triplet.) They only made the ability to do this in the version 1.2 OS upgrade.

however i am not certain the little chase light goes along with the grid sequencer. If it doesnt its not that big of a deal just slightly less asthetically pleasing than i had hoped. The Qy700 does not do grid recording mode as far as i can tell. If it does i havent been able to find any evidence of it.

yo prof mad respects for ur knowledge fuck the h8ters

k ive got a question: say i have 10 audio tracks in cubase, playing at once:

1- is what im hearing in the arrange page correct? that is, is cubase playing all the files at once or is there also a delay somewhere and i can't really hear how the stuff is sequenced until i export? little details are important as i do alot of drones and the PHASE is especially important in the layers.

2- if i only monitor from the soundcard output and i lay another track, will i hear my in-the-process-of-recording-analog synth output in time with what is already recorded and played back?

tnx

I have a q on the qy700 - is there a mode where u can mute and unmute tracks with 1 push during live playback? kthx

  YEK said:

choose wisely. i would not lay down the money for an rs.

if i had other hardware i'd def go for that qy cause it sounds dope.

from searching ebay completed auctions the Qy700 is going for $350-500 and the RS7000 is around $500-700

the extra 200 dollars seems to be just for the sampling features, which makes it a fully functional sampling workstation similar to an mpc.

i just found the manual for the qy700 and it appears that it does not have a grid record like the RS7000, this is the deal breaker for me.

  Ghostbusters III said:

  YEK said:

choose wisely. i would not lay down the money for an rs.

if i had other hardware i'd def go for that qy cause it sounds dope.

 

from searching ebay completed auctions the Qy700 is going for $350-500 and the RS7000 is around $500-700

the extra 200 dollars seems to be just for the sampling features, which makes it a fully functional sampling workstation similar to an mpc.

i just found the manual for the qy700 and it appears that it does not have a grid record like the RS7000, this is the deal breaker for me.

nice one man. be sure to share how things go.

i'm sad that my jitter-spotting dancer joke wasn't funny

I for one laughed...

im sad no one can answer my FUNDAMENTAL DIGITAL AUDIO QUESTION!

  dR_PeNiSoN said:

yo prof mad respects for ur knowledge fuck the h8ters

 

k ive got a question: say i have 10 audio tracks in cubase, playing at once:

 

1- is what im hearing in the arrange page correct? that is, is cubase playing all the files at once or is there also a delay somewhere and i can't really hear how the stuff is sequenced until i export? little details are important as i do alot of drones and the PHASE is especially important in the layers.

 

2- if i only monitor from the soundcard output and i lay another track, will i hear my in-the-process-of-recording-analog synth output in time with what is already recorded and played back?

 

tnx

sorry! been on a hiatus

1 - if it's sx2 or 3 then they should all be playing back in perfect sync... it's mainly going to be extra processing which knocks things off, or triggering samples or softsynths... computers big problems are really to do with triggering external devices

2 - if you're monitoring the recording through the software (not direct ASIO monitoring or hearing it through a mixer) then it will be in sync in the same way as if you were playing back... but there's quite a bit of delay just using a computer, so if you're playing a part live you really need direct monitoring otherwise you'll play everything sloppy and then it'll never be in time with the computer...

quite a fundamental problem really - more so for keyboardists obviously - you can mess around with channel and midi delays to get it as close as possible, but it can be much easier just to press record on a little black box and have everything record and playback exactly as you play it

alright! tnx man!

hey btw, everyone using SX should do this:

1- enable asio direct monitoring

2-check your output latency in ms

3- calculate number of samples of output latency (44100 hz sampling= 44100 samples/second)

4- compensate that value in the asio options, i think its called recording offset

so: youre going to hear yourself play a guitar for example directly without delay but because cubase takes some time before what youre hearing directly is processed and recorded, the recorded clip will be offset and when you play back you will hear what you recorded without offset.

this is so important man

er you have to calculate the input and output latency difference, anyway you get the idea.

  analogue wings said:

I have a q on the qy700 - is there a mode where u can mute and unmute tracks with 1 push during live playback? kthx

now answer this one, then. it's easy.

  dR_PeNiSoN said:

hey btw, everyone using SX should do this:

 

1- enable asio direct monitoring

2-check your output latency in ms

3- calculate number of samples of output latency (44100 hz sampling= 44100 samples/second)

4- compensate that value in the asio options, i think its called recording offset

 

so: youre going to hear yourself play a guitar for example directly without delay but because cubase takes some time before what youre hearing directly is processed and recorded, the recorded clip will be offset and when you play back you will hear what you recorded without offset.

 

this is so important man

i might be mistaken but this is how Cubase SX should be setup by default. The installers for Nuendo 3 and Cubase SX 3 set it this way upon first opening.

  analogue wings said:

  analogue wings said:

I have a q on the qy700 - is there a mode where u can mute and unmute tracks with 1 push during live playback? kthx

 

now answer this one, then. it's easy.

i don't specifically remember, but i'd be almost certain you can - i've never used a h/w sequencer which doesn't do this... might be worth downloading the manual just to be sure

lol, i hate using fruity loops, I'm working on a new format for all my stuff, but I have like 0$, what sequencer for me?

try renoise!

fully functional demo - takes a while to get to grips with

so although you guys are debating between hardware sequencers and a computer as being different, you do know that they are both "computers". neither one of these devices use any sort of analog circuitry to understand timing.

"a h/w sequencer is generally a custom designed computer running a very stripped down OS, which doesn't crash, with rock-solid MIDI timing (something no computer has), a custom control surface made for programming, editing and sequencing, zero loading & saving times, and often far superior sequencing and editing capabilities..."

so in this statement the only thing you've proven is that both are computers. then you contradict yourself by saying that no computer has rock solid midi. they are both computers so how is it that the "hardware" version is any different. has anyone here ever heard of a soundcard? or maybe using some sort of external clock reference like big ben for example. those too are computers (with 'rock solid' midi timing). furthermore every computer program that offers sequencing capabilities also offers a custom control surface (which is actually custom because unlike a 'hardware' sequencers you can assign any midi parameter you wish to control the software), and often far superior sequencing and editing capabilitiesexist in an environment in which the user is left the option to custom their own controls.

the leaps and bounds that have happened in the computer music domain with the advent and commercialization of soundcards made for the "prosumer" have put hardware sequencers about as useful as the midi effects and sounds that were being made at the time of their release (how could the QY700 be so fantastic at calculating that 15 years later when computers have advances exponentially its still somehow better at calculating primitive midi signals)

"the reason a computer is sloppy has been covered in most of the articles i posted: emulated midi ports, kernal mode, device jitter, device latency, windows device handling, etc."

if you are debating between a hardware sequencer and some shitty stock dell then yes hardware sequencers are better. however, you cant possibily expect anyone with any decent knowledge of a computer to think there couldnt be a better solution by know with how powerful computers are (and also how incredibly easy it is to remove all of these problems you refer to with an external clock).

doesnt is seem to be obivous that if you have some sort of latency in your signal path, and you can alter the amount of latency, to add the negative amount of however much latency you have? this isnt a new concept.

get whatever sequencer you like and sounds good to you. blah blah blahing on a forum will not make you a better sequencers and also will not describe in any accurate way which one you will like more. maybe you like house music and all you need alesis sr-16 to satisfy your need to hear a metronome with a bass drum instead of a click.

i also hate when the bitches at the club wont get down cause they're all "your jitter shit is wack son, thats off by like 5 ms!". maybe i need to get myself a phatty london apartment and a bunch of cars.

  arsenlives said:

so although you guys are debating between hardware sequencers and a computer as being different, you do know that they are both "computers". neither one of these devices use any sort of analog circuitry to understand timing.

 

"a h/w sequencer is generally a custom designed computer running a very stripped down OS, which doesn't crash, with rock-solid MIDI timing (something no computer has), a custom control surface made for programming, editing and sequencing, zero loading & saving times, and often far superior sequencing and editing capabilities..."

 

so in this statement the only thing you've proven is that both are computers. then you contradict yourself by saying that no computer has rock solid midi. they are both computers so how is it that the "hardware" version is any different. has anyone here ever heard of a soundcard? or maybe using some sort of external clock reference like big ben for example. those too are computers (with 'rock solid' midi timing). furthermore every computer program that offers sequencing capabilities also offers a custom control surface (which is actually custom because unlike a 'hardware' sequencers you can assign any midi parameter you wish to control the software), and often far superior sequencing and editing capabilitiesexist in an environment in which the user is left the option to custom their own controls.

 

the leaps and bounds that have happened in the computer music domain with the advent and commercialization of soundcards made for the "prosumer" have put hardware sequencers about as useful as the midi effects and sounds that were being made at the time of their release (how could the QY700 be so fantastic at calculating that 15 years later when computers have advances exponentially its still somehow better at calculating primitive midi signals)

 

"the reason a computer is sloppy has been covered in most of the articles i posted: emulated midi ports, kernal mode, device jitter, device latency, windows device handling, etc."

 

if you are debating between a hardware sequencer and some shitty stock dell then yes hardware sequencers are better. however, you cant possibily expect anyone with any decent knowledge of a computer to think there couldnt be a better solution by know with how powerful computers are (and also how incredibly easy it is to remove all of these problems you refer to with an external clock).

i agree with you that all this discussion about timing and delays is a very bizzare anal hyper subtle debate. However i have been using Cubase for over 7 years and i am at the point right now that computer sequencers just arent sparking my creativity right now.

i definitely agree that the visual grid manipulation thing gets a little old. try something like ableton that lets you midi map just about anything to anything and lets you sequence live.

or max/msp. or reaktor. or plogue. the possibilities are endless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

or you could use the "pan and and a plan" method.

arsen, you're incorrect. a big ben is a sample-rate clock for digital audio. it has nearly nothing to do with midi timing.

what about the yamaha rm1x, had mine for a couple of months now and i reckon its the bogs dollox

think it has a few of the qy700 features but with a more groovebox-y feel

its got 8 realtime/midi controllers with a shift button - doubles up to 16

realtime midi beatstretch

realtime clock shift, midi octaver + 2 midi harmonizers + midi delay

all independant on 16 midi channels and all the live tweaks are recordable :)

step, grid, realtime sequencer, event editor

mutes, 5 mute groups, 8 transpose channels

can record/playback strange time sigs on different tracks

records and sends controller data/sytem exclusive, so you can use it as en editor librarian type box

16 parts per section, 16 sections per style, 50 user styles

it rocks hard as a live midi fucker/sequencer/jambox, got mine for 120 quid delivered off the 'bay

not too much internal memory, especially if your recording lots of tweaks and shit

internal synth gets a bad rep, but im used to an mc303 so sounds usable to me :)

no midi learn and i think the keys can wear out if its played as a keyboard

plenty reviews around, check it out

speaking of the mc303, not in any way as featured as the rm1x but still worth a look if you want something uber simple (notes only)...

the mutes on that link up with my jomox airbase so mute the kick on mc303 mutes jomox kick ect, instant x0x sequencer

with mutes and pattern sequencing, plus i can use it with other synths too, has a half decent arpegiator too

or you could just buy a couple of random drum machines that can sequence midi and send them into a thru box or merger and fire wierd note/controller info at your synths :grin:

edit: forgot about the groove edit - select some steps and shift timing, gate and pitch per track (non destructive)