=== vcp challenge #73 (september edition): no sequencer ===

you are challenged to make a patch in vcv rack to showcase creative use of modules, so other users may get inspired. you can also win eternal fame!

for this edition, the challenge is to make a patch that uses no sequencer module. that means that any module which is tagged as sequencer in the library is out.

good luck!

== rules ==

  • make a patch in vcv rack and upload your patch to patchstorage.com , and/or in your reply to this thread
  • tag your upload with vcp-73
  • make a video showcasing your patch and upload it to youtube (if possible), or record some audio and upload it to e.g. soundcloud
  • add a link to your video or audio as a comment to this post
  • give feedback on other participants’ patches

deadline: end of the day, wherever you are, september 30th


Does a sequential switch count as a sequencer? :smiley:

FG_R2_88_25_Generative_Fun.vcv (19.0 KB)

Hope OK to post a not fresh patch (though not very old either :wink: )


I can’t speak for others, but I consider a sequential switch to be a form of sequencer.

the easiest way to work around this restriction is to use a sampler to live-record note sequences.

Sounds like a job for LFO’s, mixers, sample and holds, analog logic and and quantisers :slight_smile:

Might have a go at this one!


Yes. I reckon one could even put up a reasonable argument for a clock being a type of sequencer haha.

Great challenge topic though!

I’d allow clocks and dividers but, to make a point, frown upon their usage :wink:

1 Like

It’s kinda like a sequencer, but the rules are clear:

any module which is tagged as sequencer in the library is out

Therefore, anything that isn’t tagged as a sequencer isn’t a sequencer by this particular rule


well, a clock is just a square LFO after all so LFOs are frowned upon too? :wink:

1 Like

It would be ‘frequencyist’ to ban LFOs but allow HFOs (VCOs) - just sayin :wink:


I would like to suggest that the next challenge be to make a patch without triggers. :wink:

1 Like

It’s trivial to make a sequencer with a sequential switch, so I’d say that according to the spirit of the challenge it’s not allowed. But of course it’s Ben laying down the letter of the challenge. @ablaut ?

Now that’s a challenge :smile:

It’s almost as difficult as making a post without “triggers”. :thinking:



Gates it is then :wink:

Would a patch without triggers (or gates) not essentially just be a “Drone challenge”?

1 Like

Even a No Triggers From an LFO Challenge:

(uses Valhalla Delay, Tape Mello-fi and mapping via Stoermelder: 220807_vcpnoseq2.vcv)

But really, I realised that while it’s nice to go about creating a patch/a piece of music with a known limitation, I happen to have made quite a lot of stuff without the use of sequence(r)s…


I’m in!

Probably. I was saying this tongue in cheek regarding the challenge of creating challenges that do not trigger developers to feel excluded… says an exclusive sequencer developer. :thinking:

Well, I did it again. It’s impossible to record it on my PC, cause it goes crazy when I try to record it, even though the patch is not this heavy. Maybe I should reinstall Windows or something. I don’t know. Anyway, no recording. But here’s a picture

The core idea is a turing machine recreated with shift register + DAC. So you could say it’s cheating. But don’t care, hahaha

sequencernessless2.vcv (10.2 KB)