More CV 16: Pattern lengths per column

[LostForWords]

A More CV 16 track has 6 columns (on mini tracks) ... can I set individual pattern lengths for each? And if not, feature request please 

[mgd]

It is my understanding that pattern length is a property of the pattern and not the track. Therefor just create/use patterns of varying lengths on all of your tracks and you are in business.

HTH,
Michael

[LostForWords]

I probably could have worded the question better but I'm talking about one track being used as a CV-16 track - you get 6 lanes of CV output (in a given pattern) but they are all locked to the same pattern length. It would be great to be able to set a different length (number of steps) for each CV lane so that if you are sending out envelopes on one and manipulating an LFO on another they're not synced to the same pattern length necessarily.

The same question/request applies to the more triggers patterns: could pattern length (and groove settings) be applied on a per trigger output (lane) basis? That would allow full polyrhythms and polymeters.

[mgd]

I had very much understood your question. I repeat my answer:
It is my understanding that pattern length is a property of the pattern and not the track. Therefor just create/use patterns of varying lengths on all of your tracks and you are in business.
Corollar:
Each of the 6 CV of a CV16 pattern has th same length (as it is part of the same pattern).

I suggest to have a look at the manual.

Kind regards,
Michael

[mvdirty]

There is at least one tracker with independent clocking/break/jump/etc. of their FX lanes, for example, so it isn’t without precedent. It could be interesting to step lanes within a track separately, whether CV 16 or Triggers or other.

[XORadmin]

I don't give this any chance and here are the reasons:

I think already the fact that each track independent can run independently ( in a controlled way!! ) is already quite a luxus.

Keeping track of every column depending on tracktype with it's own kind of sequencing (which it would be then) is a hell to maintenance. I do this already with the sample tracks where you have like 2 'independent' sets of columns and they are so many side effects involved, own timings (next request is of course if they can have their own clocking.... ).
Which column is leading for the pattern, what should happen when a part of the pattern reaches the end, what would happen with jump commands, handling with groove settings. Tons of parameters which would need to be added which would involve quite a time to get it working properly. Indicators (because that would be the next request).
So basically, this is a too big thing to do and the benefit would be for a very small amount of users.

Splitting the CV into multiple tracks would be the way to go.

[LostForWords]

Thanks for explaining @XORadmin I can see it would be a lot of work.

Would having more than 6 tracks (+2 sample) ever be a possibility? If it's a UI matter (avoiding multiple pages of tracks) could having an option to sacrifice the two sample tracks in favour of additional normal tracks (which could be assigned to expanders) in a project be a thing?

[XORadmin]

Thanks for explaining @XORadmin I can see it would be a lot of work.

Would having more than 6 tracks (+2 sample) ever be a possibility? If it's a UI matter (avoiding multiple pages of tracks) could having an option to sacrifice the two sample tracks in favour of additional normal tracks (which could be assigned to expanders) in a project be a thing?

It could be a thing, but is also not high prio. Even because here that the sample tracks work in a completely different way.

[mvdirty]

As much as I’m among the voices wishing for a little more flexibility with track type for tracks 7 and 8, I think it worth occasionally reminding myself and others that, as it is, NerdSEQ is almost comically powerful relative to other Eurorack sequencers. People almost don’t believe me, until I show them a photo, that one of my sequencers has eighty-two (82!) CV/gate outputs.

And then I added a second one. (Albeit with less outputs.)

I know this is a first-world-problem-&-solution level of suggestion but: “Would having more ... tracks ... be a possibility” already exists. It’ll just cost you another 32 HP.

Note that the two clock extremely well together. I use my first to drive my second using DIN sync style 24 PPQN with run/stop. The second lags barely behind the first (I had to zoom in really quite far on the scope) and actually chases things like large FX-driven BPM changes remarkably well.

Just to be safe, I’ve opted to have the master NerdSEQ drive meta-sequencing that should apply voltage earlier (e.g. driving quantizer settings) and all percussion, but to be clear any sync impact of these tempo jumps was barely visible on the scope and essentially inaudible in general sequenced material. It’s that good. Buy more NerdSEQs.