Stepping through CV sequencer with two independent clocks
I'm trying to make a CV sequencer move forward with two clock generators patched into ints clock input through an adder. This works fine as long as the clocks don't trigger at the same time, because that's seen by the sequencer as a single, higher, rising signal:
My solution is to add a slight delay to one of the clocks, so the sequencer actually sees two pulses even when they trigger at the same time:
Is there a better way to do this? This is not necessarily a question specific to Drambo (I imagine hardware CV sequencers behave similarly), but I'm curious if I'm on the right track when dealing with challenges like this in a modular environment.
Comments
Why do you need 2? What’s your goal?
Do you want seq to skip step when the 2 clocks meet?
The inspiration for this is the sequencer in Gauss (Bram Bos plugin) , which I found rather inspirational without being completely random. And yes, I want the sequencer to skip a step when the clocks trigger at the same time.
@NoiseFloored Maybe you can get some inspiration from this one:
https://patchstorage.com/step-sequencer-with-manual-forward-and-reverse-buttons/
@rs2000 thanks! I'll take a look
Edit: interesting! You're using the clock input and feedback modules, I have a feeling I'll learn a lot from this one :)
You're welcome!
Another trick to extract one of two trigger signals but eliminate both triggering at the same time is the Math => XOR module.
Got it, I hadn't thought about the logic modules, note though that I want the exact oposite: two triggers at the same time moving the sequencer forward two steps.
Oops, then it's the AND module 😊
I love logic 😅
@rs2000 one question about your patch: why do you need to calculate what looks to me like
(2 * fwd - 2 * rev) * 0.125
, instead of simply doing(fwd - rev) * 0.25
? Or am I misunderstanding what the first series of scale, add and subtract modules do?It's 1*fwd - 2*rev in fact. Since feedback and add both add up, I need twice the reverse amount to go one step back.
Hmm it looks like I'm misunderstanding, this is how I interpreted your patch: