Simple improvements to sequencer

[loonytunes]

I know everyone would love a pattern seq in the fusion but i imagine that would take quite a redesign of the software, it did occur to me that some major improvement could come about for the sequencer in a way i imagine would be a lot easier to implement, interested to see what people think/agree/disagree.

Seems to me we have to spend far too much time fiddling around in the menus to get a recording done, so how about:
1:undo button works for the last recording, how hard can that be? then you dont have to go delving around setting start and end etc and erasing the last take manually.

2: At the top level of the song window the locators work, so, be able to select the current track/sound you want to record/play using the 123, or abc buttons then you could literally not have to go into the lower menus just to change tracks.

3:Auto loop , have a setting for 8 or 16 bars etc, and the song automatically loops from the bar you start recording from, ie: start recording at bar 17, and it recs to 25 and loops back to 17, then you select the next track with the abc/123's and record again, once you have built that segment, locate to 25 and your off with another 8 or 16 bars to start layering tracks, all without touching the menu screens, this would make the workflow far better.

I cant imagine this would take a total rewrite of the sequencer just a few tweaks and additional functions like this would make the sequencing side of things so much more fluid

[gwenhwyfaer]

2 and 3 would perhaps be only surface-level changes, but 1 could possibly necessitate a redesign of the whole sequencer, depending on how it was implemented in the first place (if rerecording actually recycles the memory used by the last recording, for example)... so that hard.

[diametro]

I agree ... having been using my Fusion more for recording ... it seems I spend alot of time in the process of recording ... cursoring up and down, changin tracks, arming tracks, unlinking them, etc. ...

It would be great if this could be streamlined somehow ...

(Although, didn't they say Alesis is no longer ...)

[Failed Muso]

Ok, I'm just gonna add my £0.02 to this debate.

I have never been a big user of the Fusion's onboard sequencer, prefering to use programs like Cubase/Nuendo as my main sequencing package. But over the last year or two, I have become disillusioned with software sequencers. I've tried Ableton Live, Fruity Loops, Acid, Sonar and many others in my quest for an intuitive method that didn't involve constant upgrading or large financial investment and most of all, didn't require hours of work simply setting it up to use.

I've gone on record many times about my complete dislike of workstation keyboards. Their limited interfaces and features never seemed to come close to what I could do with software. But I never actually owned one until I had Fusion.

Now, the other night, I was noodling through some sounds and thought, "oooh, that's nice, I need to record that", so I thought why not use Fusion to do it. Within minutes, I had got my tracks down, using the loop feature to ensure a constant flow and I was amazed at the ease with which I got this stuff down.

Now, they are far from complete songs and this is where I think many peoples expectations get confused. I still believe that a workstation sequencer is no more than a sketch pad, and that anyone who believes they can complete an entire professional production on one is seriously misguided. Of course, manufacturers will try to tell you that it's all you need, but they'll tell you anything, and often do. We as consumers should take some responsibility in making a decision based on what some clever marketing tells us. Now, I'm not having a swipe at any particular manufacturer as they all do it to one extent or another. We should also not expect all workstation sequencers to perform the same. Let's not forget that Korg, Yamaha & Roland have been doing this a lot longer than Alesis and have had a chance to refine their offerings. The Fusion's sequencer is doing something on a level that none of it's competitors are doing and is breaking new ground. Of course it won't suit everyone and it will need refining. And this is where consumers again should take responsibility for their purchase by testing and evaluating their purchase, determining whether it is suitable to their needs and requirements, based on actual use and not what an online review or comment on a forum says. I would never spend upwards of £800 on somethng I hadn't actually used and tested in person.

Now, the features loonytunes puts forward would be welcome indeed. Locates are very handy, but I was zipping between locate points quite satisfactorily the other day. Again, this is just the way I use it. It's not necessarily going to be the same for everyone.

I do agree about Undo. That's a feature in most soft sequencers that I use a lot. Being able to undo takes is a great feature. I did find myself getting annoyed having to clear an entire track when a layer went a bit awry.

I guess my point is that yes, there are somethings that wold be nice and there are somethings that would be great and there are somethings that could be implemented in updates and there are things that genuinely can't. I have heard hundreds of tracks written by Fusion users using the onbaord sequencer and nothing else and the vast majority haven't had any issue with the sequencer, or if they have, they have felt it insignificant enough to not mention it. It's probably more a case of adapating your work flow to suit the tools you have and managing your expectations on it's abilities.

If you are expecting to compose a fully produced track on a Fusion, or any other workstation for that matter, you probably need to re-evaluate your needs and expectations. Few, if any, people have had commercial or critical success with work produdced entirely on a keyboard workstation. They do, however, find them incredibly useful in the creation process.

So, let's see if anything gets added. It could just happen and a few more people will be appeased. In the meantime, try being more fluid yourself. As human beings we are better placed to be so, more than a machine

diametro said:

(Although, didn't they say Alesis is no longer ...)

Who are they and what is Alesis no longer ??

[guydenruyter]

Roberto, I think it is fair to accept that an onboard sequencer is harder to use than a software-based sequencer. However, I think you SHOULD be able to do a 'serious full production' on it - simply because I have no other choice. But maybe I am seeing things wrong, so I'd love to hear your suggestions.

In my situation, I am the composer and 'song/sound designer' of our band.

In the past, I worked this way:
1/ I create my songs on the computer (Sonar), works great.
2/ I bring my laptop to rehearsals, and on stage -> not so great (crashes, requires additional insurance, etc)
3/ In addition, the temptation is great to use software samplers and soft synths etc - with problems of maintaining versions, lost dll's etc...
4/ Live, guitars, vocals, drums and percussion play along.
5/ Recording the other instruments was directly done on the laptop, I did the post-processing and mastering afterwards.

Since I have my Fusion, I work this way:
1/I start composing directly on my Fusion, using the onboard sequencer
2/I usually create sounds directly on the Fusion, but in case i need a particular phrase, sample, loop, whatever, I create it first on my desktop, and then import it into the Fusion using the Fusion converter. This works pretty good once you know how.
3/Live, guitars, drums, vocals, percussion etc plays along.
4/Recording of the other instruments is still done on my laptop. However, and this is the problem, I need to rely on the Fusion itself for all the 'Fusion-generated' sounds. I have found no way of exporting all my tracks easily to my desktop for post processing, and importing them back into the Fusion. I have found no way of easily adjusting notes in the on-board sequencer - which would mean I'd have to export the data to my desktop and keep it synchronised somehow.

I was just wondering if you have suggestions on how to cope with this problem (which comes down to, summarised, keeping a 'Fusion version for live playing' and a 'desktop version for easily editing' synchronised). Electronic sounds are dominating our band's sound, so it's really important for me.