This had to do with a question of how Caterina Barbieri programmed SOTRS. It isn’t optimal, but it demonstrates what I mentioned in my response: For a sequence where one note changes every time it repeats, it’s easier to consider it as two sequences, one for the lowest note and a second for the higher notes. And since SOTRS is based around a 5 note pattern, it seemed perfect to use the Buchla-esque NYSTHI “Dual 5 Steps” from @synthi. 5stepper.vcv (23.8 KB)
2 Likes
OK so Amine got back to me with a further thing he wants – to modify 2 steps out of the 5 and to use the SEQ-3 instead of the NYSTHI dual 5 step. This is interesting and my solution may not be optimal: Use a VCA to gate a random voltage to add to the sequencer’s row output.
What I notice is that there’s a little hiccup to the note pitch that I think comes from the VCA taking non-zero time to open up, since it’s meant to handle audio without clicks. Or it can be that the accumulation of 1-sample module delays means that the two values added together don’t arrive at exactly the same time. Or why not both??? 
If someone else has a cleaner way to modulate just certain steps of a sequence, please reply! 5stepper2.vcv (31.6 KB)
1 Like
Well, you can always use MicroMap from Stoermelder and map it to the steps you want to modulate. You can also use a sequential switch, like the one from ML, and use 7 instances of the same sequence, and another one of a random voltage so every now and then you will get a random note. If you want this on specific notes on the seq3, you can use the individual gate outputs to trigger the switch and set it in a way that it will send random voltages only on those specific steps.
1 Like
Stoermelder often has solutions to edge cases like this one. I like Omri’s idea of using MicroMap. Another option is to use Stoermelder Strip, which has a randomization feature with the option to include or exclude any parameters you want. If you use Strip and include only the Seq-3 knobs you want to randomize, each time you click the Rand button (or sent a trig to the Rand input), you’ll get new random values on your chosen steps.
2 Likes
oh yes, that’s a nice one! (going to try it right now 
)
1 Like
How’s this ? Only the bottom row is Seq-3 but with the xor and and logic you can choose which step and, how many steps from 0-5 (if a 5 step sequence) the only thing I don’t like is that the inserted notes are random.
Barbieri 5 step - 21102019-V2.vcv (60.6 KB)
Even simpler, main clock drives the main 5 note seq from the Seq-3 and the gates from the same Seq-3 clock the 1.2.3.4. or 5 substitute notes from the S&H like this :
1 Like
Great thread - I’ve been exploring this same Barbieri-style phasing and wanted to share a variation I worked out.
I connected 3 Bogaudio AddrSeq modules in series, each clocked at a different division, feeding into two SequentialSwitch2 modules. The idea is that each AddrSeq cycles at a different rate, so the combination produces a melodic pattern far longer than any single sequence - the phrases only fully repeat after many bars, which gives that characteristic of SOTRS.
Here’s the demo of the 3 AddrSeq chain in action. Clocking and switching all behave - phrases evolve exactly as intended:
5 Likes
Apropos of nothing: when I saw the thumbnail, my first thought was “If Terminator 2 had been written with John as a girl, that’s what she’d look like”.
Also, yay for something other than Steve Reich techniques (not that they’re bad, just covered a-plenty already).
3 Likes
I really like your patch and would like to understand what is going on. But I’m very sorry for being so slow.
In the video, all 3 AddrSeq modules seem to be in sync and connected to the same clock output (CLK2) and the two 4-1 also seem in sync with each other, being driven by CLK1. So, how do you implement the divisions?
Also, in the Barbieri piece, I can clearly hear the phase shift in the second half of the track, but somehow can’t find this in your version.
Would be very grateful if you pointed me in the right direction to understand.
1 Like
lol nah you’re fine, it’s just a bit misleading from the outside. I wanted a shorter shortcut, so:
the divisions are kinda “baked” rather than literally different clocks on each module. everything’s synced, but because of how the switches and sequences interact, you still get a long-form pattern that takes ages to loop
so yeah it does stretch the pattern out like I said, but it’s not really phase in the Barbieri sense
with Caterina Barbieri it’s more like same stuff slowly slipping against itself (different lengths, delays, gate stuff), here I’m kinda hacking around it by chaining sequence
also the “melody” you hear isn’t just from the chain - I put a 3rd VCO getting random CV, quantized to the same scale and mixed with the original sequence, so it kind of decorrelates the line a bit
so yeah… I’m kinda giving an easier way to get that “always moving” melody/bass thing without boring yourself to death with modular riddles
haha now I can’t unsee that 
and yeah, fair -Reich is kinda the default reference for anything “phasing”, but Barbieri’s thing feels less like a strict technique and more like stretching a system until it starts behaving on its own
1 Like
Thank you for the response! No matter what, your piece sounds great!
This clears up a number of my questions, albeit I still struggle with why processes that are synced at first, being directly connected to a clock, would suddenly (well, over a longer time) fall out of sync. Is this due to some delays that are not accounted for?
Yup, that’s what it sounds like to me, too. It’s cool and quite mesmerizing.
I think Barbieri has this random melody, too, and it really loosens up the repetition of the main sequence, especially in the beginning when they still are in phase.
1 Like