MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index
 FAQ & Terms of UseFAQ & Terms Of Use   Wiggler RadioMW Radio   Muff Wiggler TwitterTwitter   Support the site @ PatreonPatreon 
 SearchSearch   RegisterSign up   Log inLog in 
WIGGLING 'LITE' IN GUEST MODE

5 Unit Hardware Sequencers VS. Numerology
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> 5U Format Modules Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next [all]
Author 5 Unit Hardware Sequencers VS. Numerology
sunsinger
Firstly, before all of the hardware guys start griping about my talking about software on a hardware page, please bear with me. There is a reason!

There has been of late a very healthy debate/conversation regarding 5 unit hardware sequencers going on. And to good effect. Alot of pros & cons floating around about this sequencer or that. From Modcan to Moon to Moog 960's by synth.com.

Many good points have been brought up. I tossing my hat into the ring.
Numerology software sequencer. This is not your typical DAW do everything sequencer. It is specifically designed for modular people with a modular approach. You can see this if you look on the page: http://www.five12.com/n2.html

To quote the page...
Quote:
The musical technique of step sequencing has been around for quite a while. In fact, the very first electronic sequencers of any kind were step sequencers. Their appeal is no secret: they are super-easy to use, and provide both immediate gratification and a surprising level of flexiblity despite their limitations. Their hands-on approach to music making provides a level of intuitiveness and experimentaition that is unmatched. They are indeed machines for creativity.

But there are limitations: Fixed numbers of steps, fixed speed settings and pitch ranges. Limited numbers of voices, or presets, or routing options. Sometimes these issues are tied to a serious learning curve, or a cryptic user interface. And in the case of most of the interesting hardware options, expensive. Very expensive.


So my questions: (snip) Does Numerology translate into equal creativity, even though it is much less $$$ than it's hardware counterparts? Are hardware sequencers the only sequencers able to make good use of a modular synthesizer? And does Numerology deserve a place along side the pantheon of it's hardware brethren?

I for one think so... (added) I know that there will be those of you that will only ever use hardware sequencers, and no computer shall go near your setup. I suppose I'm not really talking to you. So excuse me here. This thread for those of us who are comfortable with a hybrid computer Modular environment.

Numerology offers a plethora of step sequencing options. And it virtually eliminates all the limitations of the Hardware sequencers, save one...
It is reliant on a Mac computer, a midi interface, and a Midi to CV converter. Expensive propositions themselves. However, I assuming many of you have one or more of these items in your setup already.

I'll share my setup with you. A Mac of course, a MOTU Micro Lite Midi interface, and a Synth.com midi to CV module, and a MOTM 650 Midi to CV Module. Toss in one 5 unit modular synth. Or any other variety.

I am able to get 5 distinct midi voices running 5 Modular voices. Skip, Stop, Alt, Backward and Forward, Random and shift modes per line. I'm also able to switch tuning modes, timing modes (from 4 whole step notes to 132nd notes, including dotted and triplets)... Oh yeah... No Quantising!

These are just a few of the hardware style sequencing options. I'm not going into any of the other CV options with or without Volta. And I won't go into any of the software applications lurking under the hood of this beast.

The Harvestman
I have recently placed an audio demo of music done with my modular and Numerology near the end of this thread

I have edited my original posting because of some pretty valid points brought up in the following discussions.
8_)
rezzn8r
I'm trying to get away from using a computer in my setup, but Numerology will keep me happy until I can afford a hardware sequencer like the Modcan or Moon.

Numerology is a great program, I just prefer the aesthetic of a hardware interface.

p.s. I plan or trying to build a klee this winter hyper
Sequenox
Can you map Numerology to a midi controller, like a BCR2000?

That might be a similar feel to working with a real hardware sequencer.

Currently, I control my modular with the MOTM 650 and Ableton Live. It allows for use of many different scales, and it is midi mappable.
suitandtieguy
Numerology's midi learn is stupid simple. last time I used it, you control-clicked on a control and just turned your MIDI control from top to bottom and it was mapped.

I played all my shows and did all my recordings with Numerology without any control surfaces beyond the laptop itself though. I can't stand external controllers for stuff for some reason. they drive me nuts.
Ranxerox
Sequenox wrote:
Can you map Numerology to a midi controller, like a BCR2000?

That might be a similar feel to working with a real hardware sequencer.


My experience has been that a MIDI controller is never the same as hardware. It can be fun, but they're still two different ballparks.
sandyb
i think numerology is a great piece of software for making sequences. i've only played around with it a little in the past though so if my assumptions on what it can/can't do below are incorrect i apologise.
imo it depends on how you use your sequencer. i tend use my modcan sequencer in ways that are often reliant on voltage control of stage. i create feedback loops either within the sequencer or between the sequencer and other modules. these again are pretty reliant on voltage control.
numerology doesn't give me that voltage control aspect and this, along with the fact that i prefer a physical (opposed to computer based) interface, is why it isn't for me.

sandy
sduck
I love numerology. Having said that, I hardly ever use it - mostly because I've never taken the time to really learn it. I've never used any of the features beyond what was present in the very first version I bought, about 5 years ago. Hopefully this thread will get me motivated to use it a little bit more! Wish I had a 650 here - I've only got a blacet midiverter at the moment - only one channel.

Thanks for starting this thread!
sunsinger
Sequenox wrote:
Can you map Numerology to a midi controller, like a BCR2000?

That might be a similar feel to working with a real hardware sequencer.

Currently, I control my modular with the MOTM 650 and Ableton Live. It allows for use of many different scales, and it is midi mappable.


Yes you can, with enough work it can be mapped to just about anything. Jim is talking about mapping it to Ableton launch pad to launch presets, or the Akai Controller for Live. I know he has the Novation REmote 25 that he was talking about creating a template for. So I pretty sure that the answer is yes!
sunsinger
rezzn8r wrote:
I'm trying to get away from using a computer in my setup, but Numerology will keep me happy until I can afford a hardware sequencer like the Modcan or Moon.

Numerology is a great program, I just prefer the aesthetic of a hardware interface.

p.s. I plan or trying to build a klee this winter hyper


Oh, I agree, there is nothing like the gleaming beauty of the hardware. I am also trying to get away from using the computer in my setup, except for recording and mixing of course.

And I really do want a Moon 569... It is a very creative piece of kit to be sure. I have the STG time modules. They are very nice.

But numerology blew me away when I paired it with my 650 the other day and started making music, Yow!

A demo should be released soon. Jim took a video yesterday.
ignatius
numerology is a great app. if you like working in a software environment it's a no brainer.

they are coming out w/AU versions of some of the sequencers so you'll be able to run in other hosts. (can't wait for audiomulch to support AU's!!!)

i find i can use numerology for hours and come up w/a lot of inspiring stuff (for me) and have fun doing it.

i have the machinedrum and monomachine and some sequencers in the modular but i still love numerology. i think it's just a matter of having different environments to work in and see what happens.

if you gave me a klee, a nemo, a modcan sequencer.. i'll still use numerology just because it's tons of fun and i like working w/a bunch of samples and vst FX and weird processed sounds..

plus,, the midi side is great. hook up a drum module and a synth and you can make endless evolving ear candy.

i guess if you are in an all analog studio using only a modular and some analog sequencers and maybe just using the computer as a tape recorder (which i think we all do from time to time) then numerology makes no sense.. but if you ever sequence w/a computer and use samples or midi hardware then numerology is a gold mine.

that being said.. there's nothing like going all analog w/no timelines, no linear scroll bar thing going from left to right.

it's totally possible to use a midi controller only and turn off the display on your computer and just jam. i have a friend who does this w/reaktor and w/live. he spent some time working out the kinks but he can rock out killer tunes and not even look at the monitor. it's just a matter of getting to know your set up and coming up w/a template that makes sense to what you want to accomplish.
doctorvague
ignatius wrote:

it's totally possible to use a midi controller only and turn off the display on your computer and just jam. i have a friend who does this w/reaktor and w/live. he spent some time working out the kinks but he can rock out killer tunes and not even look at the monitor. it's just a matter of getting to know your set up and coming up w/a template that makes sense to what you want to accomplish.




I've been using this DIY MIDI controller module in exactly that way lately. Right now I use it to change Live scenes on the fly (mostly loops I'm playing/improvising with) OR to change Numerology presets. I did a whole jam the other day without even glancing over at the computer. It's no major technology but having it right at the modular it FEELS very different and not "computery". I can't stress enough how different it is just incorporating it physically into the modular. It really becomes a different experience subjectively.

For me the descriptions above just barely scratch the surface of Numerology. I've had some REALLY complex inter-routings that would be mind-bogglingly complex to do in hardware. Especially when you start modulating stacks with other stacks - a key change every 10 bars, a scale change and burst generator firing every x (semi-random) number of beats, extremely complex interactive polyrhythms, chord sequencers complete with programmable inversions, precisely 'controllable randomity' - I could go on the rest of the morning... not that I don't heart me some hardware too love

Here's a Num piece from several years ago. Unfortunately not a perfect example because it uses soft synths - but damn difficult to pull this kind of sequencing off completely in hardware IMO. The drums are generated in Num as well. This was all done live, one pass, real time, no edits (mouse-jamming at the time).

http://idisk.mac.com/doctorvague/Public/Clips/sprong-doyng.mp3

A lot of this discussion hinges on how you use the hardware, for instance Sandy uses his Modcan sequencer quite differently than I use mine. Morbius' sequences for example are a good, fairly traditional use of hardware seq's IMO whereas I tend to go for more abstract/complex/heavily interactive/semi-random things that Numerology is perfectly suited for.
IOW "it depends".

Cheers
Phil
sunsinger
doctorvague wrote:
[

I've been using this DIY MIDI controller module in exactly that way lately.


Can you build me one of these things??? Please?

Quote:
I did a whole jam the other day without even glancing over at the computer. It's no major technology but having it right at the modular it FEELS very different and not "computery". I can't stress enough how different it is just incorporating it physically into the modular. It really becomes a different experience subjectively.


This seems to be a big stumbling block to most modular people. They don't want to use a computer to facilitate anything on their modulars. I think you bring up a good point. Making the software run transtarently with a modular interface seems the way to go.

My friend and co-creator of some CD's we did, Michael Stearns, you might know of him... The "Mighty Serge" guy, has recently bought a laptop to run Numerology and Live on exclusively. Though sadly, he no longer has the Serge.

Quote:
For me the descriptions above just barely scratch the surface of Numerology. I've had some REALLY complex inter-routings that would be mind-bogglingly complex to do in hardware. Especially when you start modulating stacks with other stacks - a key change every 10 bars, a scale change and burst generator firing every x (semi-random) number of beats, extremely complex interactive polyrhythms, chord sequencers complete with programmable inversions, precisely 'controllable randomity' - I could go on the rest of the morning... not that I don't heart me some hardware too love


Yeah, I did not want to get into the depth of Numerology because I want folks to see it as a possible multi channel step sequencer first. I didn't want to overwhelm anyone with how complex it can get when you go deeper. And that depth IS there.

Quote:
Here's a Num piece from several years ago. Unfortunately not a perfect example because it uses soft synths - but damn difficult to pull this kind of sequencing off completely in hardware IMO. The drums are generated in Num as well. This was all done live, one pass, real time, no edits (mouse-jamming at the time).

http://idisk.mac.com/doctorvague/Public/Clips/sprong-doyng.mp3


Cool, reminds me a bit of Deodato from the 70's at times.
doctorvague
sunsinger wrote:
doctorvague wrote:
[

I've been using this DIY MIDI controller module in exactly that way lately.


Can you build me one of these things??? Please?


hmmm..... Well I guess I could actually...
I've been touting this thing pretty heavily but only because it kicks ass for my purposes anyway. Anyway to keep it short I think I want to build a mojo 2 space version with maybe 4 or 5 vertical sliders, a horizontal crossfade slider under that, and then push buttons at the bottom in some configuration that makes all 16 channels available. It could also be built with jacks to break out a couple of channels to footpedals/footswitches. You could take it as far as doubling up to 32 channels and build a bigger mixer/controller/whatever you wanted module that matches your existing modular, especially using rotary pots, matching switches, knobs etc. I'm starting to get the idea of thinking of the computer as one giant module, like maybe I send a CC from the modular to computer via one button push and I get back 5 different CV/gate events from Volta, or from a MIDI interface that I can then fan out for various modular, uh modulations without monitoring a, uh, monitor. meh
Here's the thread about the project.
sunsinger
doctorvague wrote:

Quote:
"sunsinger"Can you build me one of these things??? Please?


hmmm..... Well I guess I could actually...
I've been touting this thing pretty heavily but only because it kicks ass for my purposes anyway. Anyway to keep it short I think I want to build a mojo 2 space version with maybe 4 or 5 vertical sliders, a horizontal crossfade slider under that, and then push buttons at the bottom in some configuration that makes all 16 channels available. It could also be built with jacks to break out a couple of channels to footpedals/footswitches. You could take it as far as doubling up to 32 channels and build a bigger mixer/controller/whatever you wanted module that matches your existing modular, especially using rotary pots, matching switches, knobs etc. I'm starting to get the idea of thinking of the computer as one giant module, like maybe I send a CC from the modular to computer via one button push and I get back 5 different CV/gate events from Volta, or from a MIDI interface that I can then fan out for various modular, uh modulations without monitoring a, uh, monitor. meh



This sounds like a really great idea for integrating Numerology directly to the modular. Let's talk more... You can count me in, if the price is right.
sunsinger
Sequenox wrote:
Can you map Numerology to a midi controller, like a BCR2000?

That might be a similar feel to working with a real hardware sequencer.

Currently, I control my modular with the MOTM 650 and Ableton Live. It allows for use of many different scales, and it is midi mappable.


Sequenox, this comes straight from the creator of Numerology...
Quote:
FYI: for "full" remote control of numerology, you'll need
one of these configurations:

- a controller with 12 sliders and/or knobs
- 8 sliders or rows with 8 buttons
- an 8 x 8 button grid.

Of course, you'll still be able to do individual controller
mappings...


Sounds like the Akai APC40 controller for Ableton, or the Ableton Launchpad and a Korg Mini Slider controller paired up. Or dozens of other controllers available today.

You can get on the Numerology forum to look and see what folks are doing to map controllers at: http://five12.net/
kindredlost
Quote:
So my questions: dollar for dollar, does Numerology translate into equal creativity, even though it is much less $$$ than it's hardware counterparts?


Yes. Cheap if you have no way to sequence - digital or otherwise.

Quote:
Are hardware sequencers necessary to sequence on a modular?


No. Digital sequencers are much more flexible but are a different approach and lack stability.

Quote:
And does Numerology fit in the pantheon of it's hardware brethren?


No. There is no substitute for a hardware controller - period. By the same token, there is no substitute for a software controller - period.

--

DISCLAIMER: I only have the demo of version 2.2 (so far) and mostly do studio work with an occasional live performance here and there. I am very impressed by the amount of skill involved in creating Numerology. It is quite unique. The following is a long explanation. I think a short one wouldn't be fair.


Regardless of how much Five12 is compared (not by Five12 mind you) to a hardware sequencer, it is not. It IS a nice step sequencer and that is where the similarity ends.

My experience is that the demo does no justice to this program. It's too stripped down and bereft of instruction to learn easily. No complaints, just an observation. It is normal for a very complex tool like this.

It is simple and fun to set up a step sequence and route it to various hardware and (more useful IMO) software synths, but the modulation and timeline functions are less useable. The timeline is very under-developed and the modulation "modules?" are so complicated that it is almost impossible to generate useful modulation quickly. For a live manipulation tool this is where I have a problem. I'd need more than the demo to say for sure.

The timeline lacks any ability to start at a certain point and in order to loop a finite region you have to click a box and type in the start and stop points. Ugh! It would be nice to have sliding markers for instance. It's frustrating to try to fine tune a preset once a timeline is started because the thing runs away through the preset changes, and that is just when setting up a preset. I'm sure there is a way to turn off the timeline but it isn't clear how.

Some things are cryptic and involve multiple keystrokes, such as adding a preset to the timeline. This is a bugger if you consider this for a live tool (which I initially thought of it as). It is very "mousey" and screen-heavy. For me, Live is much easier to use for a quick pattern manipulator. I suppose it could be useful in a very minimalist way.

I've tried to set up the controller. I use a Novation ReMOTE SL and I can get continuous controllers like faders and pots to control things like the level and pan of each "stack", but the use of the transport is locked out and the MUTE and SOLO buttons cannot be assigned. Back to mousing these buttons.

The modulation modules are very intense. This is great for setting up detailed modulation IN ADVANCE but I have a real time with setting up a simple modulation in a timely manner. If you want to "experiment" with a modulation then it may get "stuck" even though you delete it. Many times I've had to close and re-open the software to get my saved pattern back without the modified presets.

Also the modulation is extremely over-complicated. For instance using the step divide modulation, if you have only one stack and create a timeline of several different presets, then when you open a modulation it only applies the modulation to the current preset. Other presets will be affected (strangely) but not in the way you originally set the modulation up. You will have to go in to each preset and change the parameters to match the one you set up. This could be remedied by using different stacks, but I haven't been able to try that with the demo. It would be a gamble to find out.

I think Numerology is in it's infancy right now. Eventually, either it will become a stable and useable tool for live use or it will become a plugin for AU users. I see more use with hardware like Electribe and on-board sequencers as well as modular step sequencers with quantitizers - even for just note step generators. Currently I'm using a DAW, so I really can't justify laying down the bucks for a software that has the above issues in hopes that the full version will be better (somehow). But that is just my experience, I'm sure others will disagree.

Of course if you are using a DAW like Cubase or Live right now then there is little advantage to Numerology other than it's ease of setting up step sequences. This is where it excels over anything else. I'd never consider using Cubase or Live as a performance tool environment except for routine repetitive beat tracks, and Numerology would fit in only so well with that. Using them for preset sequential generators is okay but that would be the same for me with Numerology.

I still see computer software driven music as only having an advantage as a PRESET control tool. If you wish to do live performances then there is little advantage to using a software sequencer except as a pre-programmed tool. The same could be argued for hardware sequencers, but I think less so. Of course your music style is the real constraint.

Naturally, not all music is the same and there are plenty of people using soft seq's to do on-the-fly dance tracks and experimental music live. I like this genre too. So in some ways the two approaches are similar. I'd opt for stability and that is where software tools are less advantageous in my opinion.

I do recall a pre-midi performance 25 years ago where we were using all hardware stuff (to a degree). The only computer was a tiny PAIA 8700 digital sequencer. We used this for triggering various arpeggiators and such, along with a SMPTE stripe on a tape unit to a light board and some other home-built gate and trigger boards for other synths. Needless to say, the whole thing crashed midway through a song and we had to "wing it". Not surprising and since then I've had a bias towards stable tools even though the technology has advanced ten-fold. Computers are still no more dependable due to what is required of them despite their increased power and efficiency. They will accomplish more but we require more of them too.

I'm certain this may generate intense disagreement and opinions. That's okay. It is just my limited experience with Numerology that I'm relating and most people could be much more capable and tolerant of digital environments than I am. Your original post seemed like a question of value and in that regard I'd still consider Numerology to be good with all things considered. I already have other options (DAWs and hardware sequencers) so it seems less appealing for me.

-David
Sequenox
Dear Sunsinger,

Thanks for thinking of me in your last post.

Numerology looks like a wonderful and adaptive tool for making music.
doctorvague
kindredlost wrote:

<snip>
DISCLAIMER: I only have the demo of version 2.2 (so far) and mostly do studio work with an occasional live performance here and there.
<snip>

My experience is that the demo does no justice to this program. It's too stripped down and bereft of instruction to learn easily. No complaints, just an observation. It is normal for a very complex tool like this.
<snip>


This is why your review of Numerology is chock-full of half-truths and misunderstanding. I'll assume your intentions are good but can't understand why someone with so little knowledge and experience with a complex program would attempt to write a review as you have. It's one thing saying "I'm having some difficulty getting [feature] to work for me" vs presenting something that appears as some sort of review and making broad-stroke pronouncements about it. Sorry, and I suppose this could be taken as defensive rantings of a fanboy, but I really do think Jim and Numerology deserve better than this.

FWIW I've been using Numerology about 6 years and still feel I have barely scratched the surface of what it will do.

Peace out,
Phil
kindredlost
doctorvague wrote:


This is why your review of Numerology is chock-full of half-truths and misunderstanding. I'll assume your intentions are good but can't understand why someone with so little knowledge and experience with a complex program would attempt to write a review as you have. It's one thing saying "I'm having some difficulty getting [feature] to work for me" vs presenting something that appears as some sort of review and making broad-stroke pronouncements about it. Sorry, and I suppose this could be taken as defensive rantings of a fanboy, but I really do think Jim and Numerology deserve better than this.

FWIW I've been using Numerology about 6 years and still feel I have barely scratched the surface of what it will do.

Peace out,
Phil


Fair enough Phil.

I'm not certain about the "half-truths" bit, but you are right about the misunderstanding. My purpose about the post was to answer the question of value and substitution for a hardware sequencer. It seems as if most of the posts here did little more than discuss the bias towards one or the other. I really do like Numerology but right now have decided to spend the time and money on other things related to making music. But that's not important.

The reason for pointing out the difficulties I've encountered (in the brief time since I started using the demo) was to give an idea of what to expect when making a hard decision between Num or a hardware sequencer. It wouldn't be very useful to leave it at "it's really complex and powerful" or "compared to a hardware device there are endless parameters". I was trying to point out the properties that prevented me from using it as a live performance tool like I would a hardware step sequencer.

I take it for granted that anyone with an ounce of sense can see the powerful interface and capabilities. The stability and clumsiness of the tool was important to outline. I'm not trying to be negative. Jim has done as well as could be expected to make it work in a useful way, but the inherent complexity naturally leads to a sort of clumsiness. That is why I tend to think of it as a preset tool. It just makes more sense to me that way.

Maybe if I had the full version, I'd see more things that I could use in a performance aspect. This is where I agree about the misunderstanding and attempted review critique. No question there.

I have used it to do some "build and tweak" pieces, but I'd rather use it as a substitute for a DAW in a live performance venue. My iMAC's CPU gets up pretty high with any deep modulation. Actually high enough to have a problem with stuck notes. I jockey the PANIC buttons on my synths to keep things right.

I like to output midi note values into a midi track in Live from Numerology It's ability to generate interesting note data and automation is unmatched. I'd love to use it as a tool for that. Cubase is not able to because of the AU format. cry at least I've not had any luck yet.
The use of the sync controls between Live and Numerology is pretty nice too. Building midi tracks is addictive. Setting up for a live performance with these tools is possible, but I'd have a hard time wanting to do it on the stage. I'd just manipulate the clips in real time from Live.

Among the many features that are easy and as far as I know not possible with any hardware stuff (yet) is automated and/or random modal changes. That is very cool. I use the step length function and set up key changes in the latter half of the step sequence. then automate tapping into them at certain times. A totally different way of making key and mode changes. Even the fancy quantitizers don't yield as much versatility as Num in that respect.

I did state that there could be ways around some of the trouble I encountered with the easier things, and I do believe that. So you are very much correct in saying it may not be fair as a review. I'll agree, but for some one who is deciding between Num and pursuit of a hardware device, I think it is important to show the learning curve.

It would be impossible to get the same level of interplay and complexity out of a half dozen hardware sequencers. Again, the cost of Numerology puts it as a no-brainer for anyone starting off and wanting to do multiple sequence work. The tradeoff (to me) is the stability and learning curve.

My initial thought about why I'd like to have Num was to use it a a performance tool. I'm not going to say it isn't good for that as much as I would be less likely to try use it for that all the time. It does do killer stuff as long as you don't get too deep off into what you need it to do automatically. For instance, it's a superb device for endlessly manipulating a step sequence as it loops. If you wanted to start automating everything you are doing manually, then that is where I find it gets sticky for a live tool. If you have it set up in advance then that makes more sense.

I hope this makes it clear of my reason for the post. I just think it is a little more limited than what it looks like at first for a live performance tool. I don't want to discount or recommend it over any hardware. It can do some of the same things and can excel at others. Even if I had Numerology I'd still want to have a hardware sequencer for what they can do too. So I wouldn't consider it a substitute. Just another tool in the belt.

I do plan to buy Num later after I get past some system plans on my modular. I also have a few studio projects to take care of (new monitors and outboard gear, etc.) so my budget doesn't permit it now. If I was without any way to sequence it would be high on the list. Maybe even first in line.

-David
ach_gott
doctorvague wrote:
This is why your review of Numerology is chock-full of half-truths and misunderstanding. I'll assume your intentions are good but can't understand why someone with so little knowledge and experience with a complex program would attempt to write a review as you have. It's one thing saying "I'm having some difficulty getting [feature] to work for me" vs presenting something that appears as some sort of review and making broad-stroke pronouncements about it. Sorry, and I suppose this could be taken as defensive rantings of a fanboy, but I really do think Jim and Numerology deserve better than this.



This really sticks in my craw. Vaguely accusing someone who is taking the time to share their experiences with software of half-lying (as opposed to misunderstanding) because the designer "deserves better" is intellectually dishonest. Explain how the features work so that he can reassess the product or address his individual points in some way.

If the documentation for the demo is so poor or the features in demo are so limited that he couldn't get some features to work, then Jim or Tom or Dominique or Sally deserve to have their product criticized.

Wigglers deserve better than this.

If it's an excellent product, then the explication of its excellence vis-a-vis the complaints should be touted.
doctorvague
CRITICISM ACCEPTED

{EDIT}
my sincere apologies about the word half-truth - I NEVER meant that as 'half-lying' I meant it more as 'missing at least half the information'. My bad.
kindredlost
doctorvague wrote:
CRITICISM ACCEPTED

{EDIT}
my sincere apologies about the word half-truth - I NEVER meant that as 'half-lying' I meant it more as 'missing at least half the information'. My bad.


No problem Phil. This is a discussion and all opinions are fair. I understand what you meant from the start. It could have been worse - you could'a called me a Non-Wiggler! Rage!

I envy your experience with Num and hope to get that far along somewhere down the road. I enjoy your videos and actually have considered Num just because of them. Thanks for the dialog.

-David
sunsinger
Ok so I'll try to reground my original intent for this discussion a bit. What I was trying to propose is that Numerology, in it's most basic form, is a kick ass, mono note, multi track event sequencer,

It could easily compare to a major hardware based sequencer, and possibly run circles around some of them for less money.

To me this means that modular users can have the expressiveness and creativity of the hardware sequencer for about 120.00 using Numerology.
If your willing to drag out your computer, configure a simple Midi to CV setup, and play.

I have been making some pretty nice tracks over the last week or so using Numerology as the primary sequencer with my modular setup.
I believe that my tracks will stand up to anything produced with a hardware sequencer.

In my next posting I will put one of these tracks up with a description of the setup.

BTW... There is a reason I did not go into an in depth review of Numerology. It is because I'm just trying to inform folks, of a cheap non-hardware way, to do some of the things that a good hardware sequencer will do.

Many of us do have computers and use them quite well. This article is not necessarily for folks with the modular setup or aesthetic of someone like Morbius, who is a hardware sequencer guru...

BTW... Numerology is very stabile as the way Im using it. I'm using 6 Mono Note sequencer stacks, and I'm not experiencing any problems. And I'm using it as a Rewire slave to Pro Tools HD.
kindredlost
sunsinger wrote:
Ok so I'll try to reground my original intent for this discussion a bit. What I was trying to propose is that Numerology, in it's most basic form, is a kick ass, mono note, multi track event sequencer,



Agreed totally.

Quote:

It could easily compare to a major hardware based sequencer, and possibly run circles around some of them for less money.


In a simplistic function form this may be true. Try to do microtonal work. Not happening. Num is a big quantitizer. Great for 12 tone equal tempered scales.

Quote:

To me this means that modular users can have the expressiveness and creativity of the hardware sequencer for about 120.00 using Numerology.
If your willing to drag out your computer, configure a simple Midi to CV setup, and play.


I don't mind setting up a computer, I just don't like the reliability issues.

Quote:

I have been making some pretty nice tracks over the last week or so using Numerology as the primary sequencer with my modular setup.
I believe that my tracks will stand up to anything produced with a hardware sequencer.

In my next posting I will put one of these tracks up with a description of the setup.


I look forward to that Ron. I really like some of your stuff. I've had the project "Sorcerer" with Michael Stearns and yourself for a while and it is one of the very best trance/dark atmospheric works I've heard in years. Gives me the willies. I've not heard really decent ?ambient? space trance since the days of Popol Vu or more recently Robert Rich. I also look forward to your new CD release. Do you have a mailing list?

Quote:

BTW... There is a reason I did not go into an in depth review of Numerology. It is because I'm just trying to inform folks, of a cheap non-hardware way, to do some of the things that a good hardware sequencer will do.


That it does, but I still contend it isn't a panacea. There are still things a hardware sequencer will do in a more useful way. I guess it's hard to see unless you can have both (which being without a full version of Numerology) I don't really.

Quote:

BTW... Numerology is very stabile as the way Im using it. I'm using 6 Mono Note sequencer stacks, and I'm not experiencing any problems. And I'm using it as a Rewire slave to Pro Tools HD.


I'm trying to understand different configurations of Num with Live, Cubase and using Rewire. It is still a bit cryptic. If you have time to outline some setup techniques I'd be grateful. I've been reading the documents for Num more carefully since this discussion started, but it's still not very apparent. help

-David
suitandtieguy
i just wanted to address a couple of things:

a) david's criticism is valuable. i strongly disagree with his supposition that the software is in its infancy, but whatever.

b) numerology is stable enough to have never crashed on me at a gig. the reason i don't use a computer live anymore is because i don't trust computers, not that i don't trust numerology. all of the problems i had with computers live had to do with other bullshit like the Certified Apple Genius wiping out my boot sector before a gig and stuff like that. i played _alot_ of shows from 2002-2006 with whatever the latest _alpha_ was, before it was released into the beta pool.

c) yeah. the timeline needs work. the fundamental problem with it is that we need a hierarchial layer above the timeline even, to switch between different timelines (i realised in the shower today that if the timeline had presets like the stacks have, i'd actually gig with it again.) i stopped working with Numerology every day when i outgrew the state of the timeline.
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> 5U Format Modules Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next [all]
Page 1 of 3
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group