I think it also depends how you’re capturing the output. In a live context it’s harder to use because there’s a high chance that you won’t like the results. But if you’re recording and editing down afterwards you can find and keep the parts that produced pleasing results.
2 Likes
As said before: Just use your mind‘s random functions and press Fill whenever you feel like it.
1 Like
Two observations.
A programmer needing a non-cryptographic pseudo-random number generator would not invent a new algorithm; they would use library code or something out of a cookbook. The algorithms are not complicated, especially for a small set of fixed probabilities. They pass many statistical tests (see, for example, xorshift generators).
Humans are not a good statistical test (see, for example, the gambler’s paradox). We look at random sequences and see clumping. When asked to write down sequences that “look random”, we tend to put in fewer and shorter runs than would actually happen. Yes, a pseudo-random number generator will eventually repeat, but the cookbook parameters ensure that the period is quite long and unlikely to be detectable by casual observation.
There are even studies in which all this is explained to subjects and then they still misperceive. So I’m not expecting this post to convince anyone.
6 Likes
there’s no ‘chance’ I’ll ever stop loving my digitakt/Ms/Mc!
1 Like
I was going to say that I thought I read somewhere that clusters/clumps/runs happen more often in truly random sequences than not.
1 Like
I suppose it doesn’t really matter what kind of random it is, I shall carry on not using it much outside of hats and fast arps.
I know its not practical but I would like stackable conditions, not just so I could have 1/4 and 2/4 together for example but for combining different repeat lengths to create polyrythmic conditions.
consider a track with only 25% probability trigs
if it’s a 1 trig track the probability of all trigs firing is 1/4 = 25% overall
if it’s a 2 trig track the probability of all trigs firing is 1/4 * 1/4 = 1/16 = 6.25% overall
if it’s a 3 trig track the probability of all trigs firing is 1/4 * 1/4 * 1/4 = 1/64 = 1.56% overall
if it’s a 4 trig track the probability of all trigs firing is 1/4 * 1/4 * 1/4 * 1/4 = 1/256 = 0.4%
pretty damn unlikely. you’ll have to wait 16 bars in 4:4 1x time to hear that on average. better up the tempo.
and this is specifically for trigs 1, 2, 3, 4 firing in that order. 3, 4, 1, 2 doesn’t count.
the probability of 12 trigs not firing is (1-.25) ^ 12 = 1.33%. also quite unlikely.
so the probability of your observation of 4 on then 12 off is .4% * 1.33% = 0.5%. even this shittiest random number generator is not going to make that happen very often.
i’m tired, could wrong, but i suggest you check your plocks, lfos, levels, etc.
but the reason i don’t use randomness for my main sonic motifs is it’s difficult enough for me to get a decent take. i don’t want an x factor getting in the way.
one approach for a (reproducible) effect of randomness would be chaining sine lfo’s.
Y‘all need to stop putting the chance conditions on main notes and throw them on the ghost notes instead
6 Likes
Think you meant to @ the OP, not me.
Your math is too generous but your conclusions are correct. The chance of this happening in one 16-step bar is roughly .000124, or a little more than 1 in 1000. But that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. It’s as likely as any other arrangement where 4 of the 16 fire and 12 don’t.
The DB-01 allows randomization of some parameters within bounds. For example, one can restrict the scale to A minor, and choose random notes between C2 and C4. I find that I can often get a bass pattern interesting enough to work with for a short while. Maybe I have to randomize quickly again once or twice. But only with 16 steps. If I try with 64 steps, it usually sounds… random. And not in a good way.
I knew there were some mistakes, I was rushing and had to put my daughter to bed. You found them! I get excited about this stuff…
Recently I discovered the OT, and the use for the arp key, for the bounded set you mention. No bad notes when you transpose via lfo. Sounds awesome in conjunction with lfo’ing the note length on a 303. (it was difficult for me to accept this coming from a free-jazz background 
)
Of course this is what the genius elektron designers had in mind. They layed it out for us to discover.
Don’t let it go to your head @Ess
1 Like
good point/idea
1 Like