From Brian Willoughby Sent Sun, May 5th 2019, 01:42
From Brian Willoughby Sent Sun, May 5th 2019, 01:42
That=E2=80=99s a good question, Drew. I asked my computer what the prime factors of 1,068 are, and it came up = with 89, 3, 2, 2. That=E2=80=99s 12 sets of 89 steps. Having 3 in there = is probably good for music in 3, 6, 9, or 12. I=E2=80=99m not sure where = 89 would come in. Brian On May 4, 2019, at 6:25 PM, Andrew Scheidler <xxxxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: > I want to know how they ended up with a 1,068 step sequencer. I would = understand 1,024 but what's with the 44 extra steps? >=20 > Drew >=20 > On Saturday, May 4, 2019, Patrick Dohman <xxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx> wrote: >> > On May 4, 2019, at 12:05 AM, Suit & Tie Guy = <xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: >> >=20 >> > We have a system that enables any one of us to send control = triggers to the others. So from one piece to the next we would alternate = 'control' responsibility. There are two 6" TV display screens in the = instruments for checking out memory allocations and control function = settings, along with numeric LED displays in each section that indicate = mode selection, multiple sequences, tuning, program parameters, random = note selection, routing and further sequence storage. >>=20 >> It appears that TD knew their stuff when it came to probabilistic = sequencers & machine learning. >> A modern reincarnation would be great. Where the inner workings of = the probabilistic chance are exposed. >> Allowing the user precise control rather than the current black box = approach where the probability & determinism are obscured. >> Perhaps in partnership with a serial or usb interface so that results = can be researched offline. >> Regards >> Patrick >=20