Hello, I had an er101 a while back and I’m thinking of getting one again. But there was a problem I remember with triggering samples - it seemed to send the cv fractionally after the gate on each step, so if that cv was being used to select a certain sample, it would not be effective until the next trigger. This was really annoying! My model was quite old and didn’t have the latest firmware - has this issue been addressed? Thanks!
I don’t have a 101 but a similar thing can happen when triggering samples on the 301. The solution there is to add a delay of a few milliseconds to the trigger signal.
Thanks for your response, that’s indeed one solution but it’s a bit convoluted:) Not all sequencers have this problem, so I assume it’s an issue with the order that events are effected when the sequencer fires (the channels are not quantumly entangled after all) and could possibly be fixed with firmware. I guess the sampler effects it too. I have no problem using marbles to sequence squid Salmple, for instance. Even just having a static, inbuilt micro delay on the gate channels would fix this problem? Is there a situation where you want the gate to fire first (I can’t think of one)?
I’m of the opinion that it is the responsibility of the CV/gate consuming module to provide the delay compensation because it is not always the case that the CV/gate comes directly from the sequencer without intervening processing.
In general, the goal is to fire the gate with minimal latency with respect to the clock. That is the argument for not delaying the trigger from the ER-101. Lookahead compensation also doesn’t work here because one of the design pillars of the ER-101 is to mimic the analog sequencer’s ability to be driven by irregular clocks.
Thanks for responding:)
Here’s my take:
The er101 is geared towards directly sequencing sound producing modules: intricate sequencing rather than broad strokes to drive other modules.
In a module like this, cv latency is more important than gate latency - tons of digital modules, not just samplers, need tight cv for selecting presets etc. Whereas a couple milliseconds latency on triggers would be inconsequential.
The problem is that the CV from er101 is laggy. No other sequencers that I’ve encountered have this problem, so I don’t think we can expect anyone to start making modules which calibrate themselves for laggy cv.
Thanks for the input! Unfortunately, I disagree with most of your points. So not much we can do from this point.
Of course tight clock is good, but it doesn’t justify a discrepancy between when gates and cv are delivered.
I’d rather have a small amount of latency on both but no discrepancy, so I could sequence samplers without fiddling with the signal. What are the use cases when you need microsecond tight gates with laggy cv? Is a millesecond or two gate delay really going to screw you up? Surely you just work around it. Or is the CV output really laggy, like more than a couple milliseconds?
@odevices: Wouldn’t it be a viable compromise if the ER-101 gave users the option what is to be sent first: Gate or CV?
The SND SAM-16 offered its users this option.
It is of course technically possible. It’s just a matter of what I prioritize for feature requests.
Being able to sequence samplers etc without intermediate modules is a big omission for such a fully featured sequencer.
I’m not going to talk in circles with you anymore.
Cool, sorry to Labour the point, you just didn’t answer the question, or say why you disagree. And I am genuinely wondering what is above this on the to do list. Whatevz:)