when will come the TR seq?

[sonicwarrior]

Does anyone know a good freeware program (Mac OS X 1.3.9 / Linux / Win32) with which you can

design a UI?

[TK.]

Do you mean the frontpanel, or the interface logic (button/LED/encoder handling + LCD menu pages, etc)

For frontpanels I'm normaly using "Frontpanel Designer", which is freely available at the website of Schaeffer Apparatebau. The result doesn't look so colourful like known from other panel drawings I found here in the forum, but the big advantage is, that it's more realistic (you can print out the panel and compare it with the real dimensions of the parts which should be used), and not at least it can be easily ordered (no doubleeffort, one-click-buy ;-)

Best Regards, Thorsten.

[stryd_one]

Do you mean the frontpanel, or the interface logic (button/LED/encoder handling + LCD menu pages, etc)

Hi TK,

I think he meant the front panel, but I am curious about the interface logic part of things - do you use a program to assist with that kind of thing? I am about to do some of that work now, and I need all the help I can find ;)

[TK.]

No, but I know companies which first develop a graphical simulation/emulation in a simple programming language (e.g. visual basic or Java). This has the advantage, that many people can review the concept with a common computer before the hardware will be developed.

Best Regards, Thorsten.

[sonicwarrior]

I meant the interface logic. 8)

I wouldn't call Java that simple and it's not really a RAD language.

In the Schaeffer Designer you can only set holes and engraved things.

I think it's easier to write it on a paper. ;)

[DrBunsen]

I know it's not free ware, but how about Flash or Director?

[stryd_one]

How about Google sketchup, image maps, and dynamic html?

[cheater]

If anyone needs help with dynamic html or web programming overall, give me a holla

[robotfunk]

Director is a specialty of mine so that's what I'd be using.

But at the price they are asking for it, it'd be prohibitive for most of us peeps.

Still, you can download a month working trial version for free and make an app with it.

I know for a fact Apple uses it for all their UI prototypes.

cheers,

Jilt

[DrBunsen]

Flash or HTML would have the advantage that we could all use it, and pick it to pieces *ahem* I mean offer constructive suggestions :)

[sonicwarrior]

Well, Flash costs too much and Dynamic HTML IMO is too complicated

for prototyping.

And as you can't press two buttons at the same time with a mouse

it is not appropriate. :P

I think it's easier to draw an image with the UI and

do the rest as explaining text.

I'll try to do that image with Open Office as it

doesn't need to be as beautiful as a final front panel design. ;)

[stryd_one]

I've found some fonts that look like a CLCD if you want?

[robotfunk]

And as you can't press two buttons at the same time with a mouse

it is not appropriate. :P

I think your computer has a keyboard attached too :P

[sonicwarrior]

I've found some fonts that look like a CLCD if you want?

That would be cool!

I think your computer has a keyboard attached too :P

Of course, but as I have to simulate a real life UI and not software:

The keyboard keys are not helpful.

But I've already started to draw in Open Office.

[stryd_one]

Here we go... Standard HD44780 font emulations for PC, Mac and *nix.

Save the file as .tar and unzip the file you need from inside it. I've got some other CLCD-style fonts here (not necessarily HD44780 style) if you want some special characters like arrows and such?

[sonicwarrior]

On my Mac (commandline) I got the following error message:

tar -xvf hd44780.tar

lcdps/

lcdps/LCDH____.AFM

tar: Skipping to next header

tar: Archive contains obsolescent base-64 headers

tar: Read 8425 bytes from hd44780.tar

tar: Error exit delayed from previous errors

???

[stryd_one]

Try this one (it's zip file format this time)

Or

I am making these fonts freely available. You have permission to use and distribute all of these fonts. So post them on your own website if you want, give them to friends, share the wealth

http://www.pic101.com/mcgahee/

What a nice guy!

hd44780.zip.txt

hd44780.zip.txt

[sonicwarrior]

Ok, here is v1 of my UI design suggestion:

Ready for comments now. ;D

I hope I didn't forget a feature.

Should work without a description, else my design is shit.

I changed the following:

-  16 instrument (trigger) tracks + Accent

to

- 16 instrument (trigger tracks)

Why? I recognized that the TR-808 has had only 12 tracks

and 17 tracks are stupid to select. ;)

Every track could be accent, so we don't need

a dedicated accent track.

- At least one programmable analog trigger out

to

- One trigger out for each track (= 16 trigger outs)

Is anyone against this changes?

(If not I will change this also in the wiki page)

I think there are two groups here by now:

1. Wanting a TR like sequencer with trigger outs

for creating x0x-clones without the MIDI timing problems.

2. Wanting a TR like sequencer for their MIDI synths

(e.g. Novation DrumStation)

Each group has different focusses.

Personally I think that the original MIDIbox SEQ is

better suited for group 2 because of extended features

like velocity, etc. which would be complexer to create

for analog machines (velocity would need 1 CV out for every

track!!! Remember how expensive the AOUT is? :P

Or how much work the AOUT_LC? ;) )

[modularkomplex]

Hi All,

just found this Midibox-Thing a few days ago and must say, thats all pretty cool.

I will first begin to build a Midibox SID, next step would be a Sequencer.

But now to the Idea of a TR like Sequencer which I woould also like to build. I really like the ideas in this thread but I would prefer a solution with direct access to eg. 8 tracks. A bit like the Doepfer Schaltwerk does it.

Would be nice to expand the design with this as an option. Just my two cents.

[sonicwarrior]

I would prefer a solution with direct access to eg. 8 tracks. A bit like the Doepfer Schaltwerk does it.

Would be nice to expand the design with this as an option.

Well, in my eyes there are some points that speaks against such a solution:

1. Money (showing 8 tracks [with how many steps?] would require 8 x 16 LEDs and buttons

in a 16 step solution, in a SDS-6-like solution still 24 buttons and 8 x16 LEDs would be needed)

2. Space (I would prefer a relatively compact solution)

3. Do you really want to solder sooo many LEDs (and buttons)?

4. I think the SDS-6 and Schaltwerk confuse with showing so much tracks at once.

5. Monome costs 500 US $ (That would be 1000 US $ alone for 8 x 16 tracks) -> No solution

and even more confusing than the SDS-6 or Schaltwerk.

Edit: In my UI design suggestion you can select 2 tracks for the two rows in 16 step mode:

Press "2-Trk" and then select 2 tracks (the lower one would be in row and the greater one in row 2).

I think that's a nice compromise.

[modularkomplex]

Hi and thanks for replying,

1. Money (showing 8 tracks [with how many steps?] would require 8 x 16 LEDs and buttons

in a 16 step solution, in a SDS-6-like solution still 24 buttons and 8 x16 LEDs would be needed)

16 steps would be ca. EUR 32,- per track. Sure not cheap.

2. Space (I would prefer a relatively compact solution)

True, but I'm thinking of an option to the base-design. So anyone can build a 2-track, 4-track ... 16-track-version just like he wants.

3. Do you really want to solder sooo many LEDs (and buttons)?

I have to, if I want my dreammachine  ;D

4. I think the SDS-6 and Schaltwerk confuse with showing so much tracks at once.

Here we are thinking completly different. For my opinion it's easier to edit if I'm seeing all tracks at once.

Would be a great lightshow, too.

5. Monome costs 500 US $ (That would be 1000 US $ alone for 8 x 16 tracks) -> No solution

and even more confusing than the SDS-6 or Schaltwerk.

Monome and Schaltwerk are really expensive and Schaltwerk is beeing discontinued. The SDS-6 is a really nice vintage-seq but not what Im looking for.

Edit: In my UI design suggestion you can select 2 tracks for the two rows in 16 step mode:

Press "2-Trk" and then select 2 tracks (the lower one would be in row and the greater one in row 2).

I think that's a nice compromise.

Your UI-design is really cool. I only would like a expandable modular concept where I can add additional Tracks as I need them.

[sonicwarrior]

Your UI-design is really cool. I only would like a expandable modular concept where I can add additional Tracks as I need them.

Well, let's see what the others say. As I will not program this because

of missing knowledge (I can only program simple Java stuff)

a programmer should give a comment about that.

From the UI side I would suggest the following:

1. In the source code you can set the maximal tracks shown parallel.

(= the number of rows you want to have in your machine)

2. 2-track would be default

3. In a design with more than 2-Tracks in parallel the button should

be labelled different, e.g. "Multi-Track-Select" and you select the tracks

by first pressing this button, then the tracks you want to select

by using the first 16-step row and then again the button.

If more than the maximum tracks are selected only the first ones until

the maximum value will be used.

Edit: Some might ask why to use only the first row for the track selection.

Reason: With the 16 LEDs for the "selected track(s)" I cannot neither display

tracks that are selected doubled nor a specific order of the tracks.

E.g. track 5 on row 1, track 1 on row 2, in my design track 1 would

be on row 1 and track 5 on row 2 and the "selected track(s)" LEDs of both

track 1 and 5 would be active.

I think this is still better than to show the selections only in the display.

But an additional dedicated display page may help to clear things.

4. In 32-step-mode the maximum tracks is cut into halves.

So if you have the 8-track solution you can select 4 tracks there

showing all 4 32 steps fully.

5. Because of that I think it makes sense to allow only multiples of 2

as value for the maximum parallel tracks:

2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16

There is still a problem:

How do I select a track for the edit functions (currently: copy, paste, clear)?

That's also something I have currently not

considered in my UI design. :-[

And: What's with a 64-step mode? ;D

Edit2: I have made some smaller changes (Separate encoders for Tempo/Data, added MIDI button, only one button for Play/Pause)

and found a solution for "How do I select a track for the edit functions (currently: copy, paste, clear)?":

With "Select track". Man why didn't I get this earlier? ;D

[modularkomplex]

Hi,

1. In the source code you can set the maximal tracks shown parallel.

(= the number of rows you want to have in your machine)

2. 2-track would be default

Agreed.

3. In a design with more than 2-Tracks in parallel the button should

be labelled different, e.g. "Multi-Track-Select" and you select the tracks

by first pressing this button, then the tracks you want to select

by using the first 16-step row and then again the button.

If more than the maximum tracks are selected only the first ones until

the maximum value will be used.

What about a dedicated track-selection encoder per row?  ;D

Edit: Some might ask why to use only the first row for the track selection.

Reason: With the 16 LEDs for the "selected track(s)" I cannot neither display

tracks that are selected doubled nor a specific order of the tracks.

E.g. track 5 on row 1, track 1 on row 2, in my design track 1 would

be on row 1 and track 5 on row 2 and the "selected track(s)" LEDs of both

track 1 and 5 would be active.

I think this is still better than to show the selections only in the display.

But an additional dedicated display page may help to clear things.

A dedicated display page would be the best solution, IMO. Or an extra display per row? Just kidding!

4. In 32-step-mode the maximum tracks is cut into halves.

So if you have the 8-track solution you can select 4 tracks there

showing all 4 32 steps fully.

Agreed.

5. Because of that I think it makes sense to allow only multiples of 2

as value for the maximum parallel tracks:

2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16

Agreed.

And: What's with a 64-step mode? ;D

Only the Sky (the number of seqencer-rows) should be the limit.

[sonicwarrior]

What about a dedicated track-selection encoder per row?  ;D

Ah, nice joke.  :P

Although: Would make much less sense than a selection

with the buttons of the row because an encoder doesn't show

the actual value. :P

So we should introduce enoders with a 16 LED ring around them. ;D

[DrBunsen]

I changed the following:

I thought that list was meant to be a definition of existing "TR like" sequencers.  In light of which I'd like to suggest I make the following changes:

Insert a preamble about defining "TR like" based on existing sequencers.

Define the "TR-like interface"

Add a list of our desired features.

If there's general approval I'll make the changes.

Also the phrase " At least 32 steps per bar as maximum" makes no sense.  "At least... as maximum"?