+1 to all of this. Three cheers!
And I cannot help but think: the level of dedication @CarlosUnch has to this product and our questions and curiosity before it even makes its way into anyone’s hands bodes extremely well for customer service after it has been released.
@TheGhostCat @chm_jacques thank you both for your kind words!
It means a lot for us to share what has been cooking in the cave for 2 years now. The better I explain what the sequencer is capable of, the more meaningful feedback we get to feed our souls while leaving the cave. And you guys are there to prove it even long before release.
All my ramblings here helps me to create a better user manual as well. There’s a lot of ideas taken from this thread in there.
As you can see, I am as excited as you to use an Oxi One. “From musicians to musicians” may sound like such a cliche, but it truly applies in this case. This is our dream sequencer as how we envisioned it for our own use. We have put a lot of effort and passion into it and I hope it translates once you start playing with it.
Well, I for one will be quiet, for once. Don’t wanna sway this lovely enthusiasm.
It’s def keeping me interested still.
I only can confirm that the more I learn about the OXI the more I’m excited. Even during the short time this thread is existing … there has been a development of the OXI, which seems to follow many ideas from the community and I dare to say, OXI might set a good example how hardware developers and users can interact, even before the machine is ready to go for kickstarter.
Many kudos to @CarlosUnch and the team 
How about calling the 4 sequencers “engines”? So each engine can be a type of sequencer with it’s 8 tracks. (Yes, I know there was a sequencer called “Engine”)
It’s a valid point. Saying the sequencer has 4 sequencers inside it is a bit confusing.
If it was the “Oxi One Master Controller has 4 sequencers inside it” or “The Oxi One Sequencer has 4 engines inside it” it would be a bit less redundant.
I like it. Not already overload with meaning.
Absolutely. Made the same point myself previously. Sticking to that terminology will make the user manual difficult.
And I still can’t make sense of this:
If a sequencer is a hardware thing that plays a set of tracks (1 or 8 depending on setup) how can you paste a sequencer into a track ? There’s some inconsistency in how the word ‘sequencer’ is used I guess ?
Could you add randomize note from scale ? Maybe randomize from [list of notes] ?
Would it be possible to include operators? I.e. [do not play if] if other track notes are playing?
Are there automation curves avilable? sine, triangle, linear increase?
Mono, Chord and Polyphonic modes has 4 CC lanes each. Multitrack has 1 per track, 8.
Depending on how you arrange the 4 slots available you can end up with 32 CC lanes of automation.
There was a bit of a confusion in the beginning, but this has improved much. IMO there is no need to introduce a “new” term.
How about this …
At the end we need a good description of the modes, which explains in words easy to understand what it does, what it’s for, etc.
A way to perform with your recorded Midi CC, man that sounds great!
To randomize a note in a scale there’s a couple of ways of doing it.
-Radom perform has octave random percentage.
-The Randomizer creates a sequence based on a scale, or chromatic if you want. You can fine tune density, spread and time quantization.
-LFO has NOTE destination, it changes the pitch of the notes on a scale depending on the LFO position.
This randomization is based on the scale of each Sequencer mode.
Operators is an interesting thing to consider, thanks!
LFOs can be routed to either internal parameters or to a user selected CC number. LFOs have many waves to choose from, rate (free or clocked) and amount.
That’s pretty much it. It doesn’t get any more tedious than that. The manual is written based on those principles. Every time I talk about a “Sequencer mode” is with capital S to help recall it.
Huh, cool. I wish there were a few more lanes per track for multi-track — I’m thinking about using that with a nord drum or an MFB 301; especially in the latter case, there’s no program change function, so if you want to tweak a drum sound over the course of a sequence, you have to do it with CCs directly. It would be amazing to have, say, all four knobs in their normal and shifted positions do something on each step — so pitch, velocity, and then up to six CC values. That might make things a bit messy for folks who don’t need that level of automation, though.
Except that this:
Doesn’t really make any sense with that definition. (Not to me, anyway).
Did you mean ‘paste a mono pattern onto a single track’ ?
Would be nice if ( sorry if some have been discussed already )
Each pattern can have its own cc , so it’s not defined per project / sequencer type
Cc can be pre defined ( eg digitakt ) so they’re quickly delectable from a menu
Cc could automatically cycle through values / lfo style / a table of values that I define / random …
Global / per pattern / per step ability to randomise/ mutate notes based on key
Lots of play types , forward and backwards are too basic these days. I have a Roland a01 boutique box and it’s got many types I haven’t seen on other boxes ( have a look at the manual !! ) … I’m not very familiar with eurorack sequencers though.
I’ve followed the thread for a while , it’s definitely come a long way , I hope it’s a big success.
You can select MIDI channel per track in Multitrack mode, so using two tracks (or more) to have an extra CC is doable. Also adding another Multitrack Sequencer, you can group tracks for the same MIDI channel as you want.
Btw, can the four sequencers be independently started, stopped and restarted?
Sure, that makes sense. It feels like that would make editing CC values a lot slower, though — either you end up needing to flip between sequencers to pick up the other CCs or you only have a couple of tracks of notes visible at a given time. Still, I understand that this may not be a use case you’re optimizing for.