Linear Representation of Frequency... aka Piano Rolls or Grid/Matrix Editing

[stryd_one]

Hey dudes,

I'm currently designing a grid editor for the vX, and I just can't decide if it should have a horizontal pitch grid like so:

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5

Step 6

Step 7

Step 8

Pitch      A  A#  B  C  C#  D  D#  E  F  F#  G  G#

Or vertical like so:

Note A

Note A#

Note B

Note C

Note C#

Note D

Note D#

Note E

Note F

Note F#

Note G

Note G#

Step      1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8

(there may be more or less steps or pitches, this is just to illustrate)

So what do you prefer, and if you don't mind letting me know, why?

Don't just say which you are accustomed to, tell me which you think is best :)

Thanks!! :D

[audioworld]

stry,

your vX concept looks wonderful, I am in the process of designing a hardware controller similar to the genoqs octopus:

http://www.genoqs.net/

I think a limitation in the vX to 8 or 12 steps is just a little too short, 16 steps would be fine. I checked "something stryde did not think of", because I myself hope to find a concept which no one has thought of yet..----))))

My matrix has 96 buttons (16 horizontal and 6 vertical), with eight 4x3 fields, and should operate in seven different modes: One is all horizontal, one is all vertical, on is line-after-line, one is "every button equals one sequence", another one is "left side horizontal, right side vertical" and so on... some buttons along the main matrix will allow to choose the MODE for the matrix (like switching from STEP to PATTERN to GRID to ... mode).

I think it is important to visualize a matrix of horizontal steps as well as vertical "mixer paths", because I depends heavily if you edit DRUMS or MELODIC lines. I will try to post some visualization graphics later on.

Reading the Ocotups user manual was definitely an inspiration for me, maybe there is something in there for you as well (but maybe you know it already inside out...--)))

cheers, kap.

[stryd_one]

Gday :)

The octopus is a sequencer not a controller, and I doubt that you will get any closer to the octopus than the vX on this platform... So far I'm not aware of any feature that it has, that was not in the vX design beforehand, and the vX has the subclockng engine on top of that. I was actually very glad for all my documentation here when the octopus was announced last year, otherwise I would be worried that they'd sue me hehehe  :) The PIC just doesn't have the power of the octopus. That said, I am designing the firmware with the possibility of a future version that will be a multi core design using MBLink... But that's a little while off :)

The intended design is really 16x12 steps, and similar again to the octopus, has different views, for eg: 16 steps across x 12 tracks, or 16 steps across x 12 notes (an octave, with up/down buttons). There's a (only slightly) better description on the wiki User Interface notes :) That version is only 8 steps wide, as there is not sufficient processing power to drive the matrix with a single core while keeping decent timing. Another reason for the design being modular so I can shift different jobs to different cores...

But the question remains... Which way do the buttons go? 16x12 or 12x16?

[TheAncientOne]

You've got one vote here:

For me, a score proceeds left to right, so the time axis should be horizontal and the pitch axis vertical. This makes graphical sense to me too, and gets closer to a human vision slot as well, not quite golden section at  4:3 but that was good enough for old style TV,

Mike

[audioworld]

stryde, thanks for the clarifications,

so maybe YOU should sue genoqs..--)))) (but they seem very friendly anyway, I heard they even want to make their code public domain one day...).

Yes, I meant I am building a controller (MIDIO128+MB64), which could/should be used as a physical interface to a sequencer, and should at the same time (by pressing a button) double as a controller for ableton live. My button rows will be 16 horizontal and 6 vertical, this equates to 6 tracks with 16 steps each for the sequencer control. But when used as the Ableton Live controller, this equates to 16 tracks with 6 clips on each track, so this is more the "vertical" approach.

How about this for your concept:

one MIDIO128 or MB64(e) just for the user Interface (buttons, knobs), and another Core just running the sequencer (and maybe he LCD, but like the Octopus, I would prefer to use the LCD as little as possible).

This way everyone could design very freely the mechanical layout, but the sequencer core is always the same, and both parts of the code are seperated cleanly. One only has to specify a common "handover matrix" for physical to logical mapping.

[lylehaze]

I've got two answers for you..

First, I agree with the Prof.. Time goes left to right, and pitch goes high to low. It's only natural. I think of pitch as going UP or DOWN.. seeing it represented that way makes it the most recognizable. And when someone wants to know how much TIME a sequence takes, they always ask how "Long" it is, they have never asked me how "Tall" it is. ;-)

BUT.. I like to think "Outside the Box".. so perhaps the best answer is to run down to the store and get TWO sets of little rubber feet. Now the option is "User-Adjustable"!

Have Fun,

LyleHaze

[TheAncientOne]

BUT.. I like to think "Outside the Box".. so perhaps the best answer is to run down to the store and get TWO sets of little rubber feet. Now the option is "User-Adjustable"!

Classic Lateral Thinking Lyle - wonderful!

Mike

[lylehaze]

@TheProf

I thought I took "Outside the Box" literally instead of laterally. I mean, that _IS_ Where you put the little feet.

:D

I'm glad the weekend is here!

LyleHaze