Initial Genoqs Nemo Reaction-

breitt · Post by **breitt** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:18 am

-SUPERB!!!
I just received it today and I can tell you that this blows away any sequencer I've ever touched. Sterling craftsmanship, extremely ergonomic, creatively inspiring and most important of all-EASY as h**l to use, despite its remarkably deep capabilities. The intuitive nature of the interface makes it an absolutely joy. Before I bought it, I was concerned about the lack of any LED/LCD alphanumeric display, but oddly the machine forces you to be more creative because of this. The clever arrangement of its reassuringly tactile ball bearing buttons combined with the multi-color LED chase lights and the 4-tracks-at-a-glance page setup brings out a natural mathematical workflow that I've not utilized with any other sequencer.

Highly recommended to anyone wanting an elegant way to sequence multitimbral polyphonic gear. Yes-it's expensive. And yes-it's worth it.

More info here: http://www.genoqs.com/index.php?option= ... Itemid=120

JSRockit · Post by **JSRockit** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:08 pm

Congrats on your purchase. Glad to hear you are happy with it as well...since you tend not to be happy with most stuff (like me). Which synths are you using it with?

breitt · Post by **breitt** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:09 pm

JSRockit wrote:Congrats on your purchase. Glad to hear you are happy with it as well...since you tend not to be happy with most stuff (like me). Which synths are you using it with?

So far, I've just had a chance to use it with my Omega, but I plan on using the second midi output to go to the Virus.
Every time I use it, I'm learning new stuff. Simple capabilities like track direction and track length editing make tons of difference in the music. I haven't even gotten to the more advanced elements, like the ability to have each track modulate another. That should be interesting.

crystalmsc · Post by **crystalmsc** » Thu Oct 09, 2008 11:22 am

congrats, it's great to have such a rewarding addition.

kraku · Post by **kraku** » Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:43 pm

breitt wrote:-SUPERB!!!
I just received it today and I can tell you that this blows away any sequencer I've ever touched. Sterling craftsmanship, extremely ergonomic, creatively inspiring and most important of all-EASY as h**l to use, despite its remarkably deep capabilities. The intuitive nature of the interface makes it an absolutely joy. Before I bought it, I was concerned about the lack of any LED/LCD alphanumeric display, but oddly the machine forces you to be more creative because of this. The clever arrangement of its reassuringly tactile ball bearing buttons combined with the multi-color LED chase lights and the 4-tracks-at-a-glance page setup brings out a natural mathematical workflow that I've not utilized with any other sequencer.

Highly recommended to anyone wanting an elegant way to sequence multitimbral polyphonic gear. Yes-it's expensive. And yes-it's worth it.

Told you!

Welcome to the club of extremely happy Nemo owners!

syncretism · Post by **syncretism** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 11:47 pm

Did it arrive with the new OS installed?

breitt · Post by **breitt** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:50 am

syncretism wrote:Did it arrive with the new OS installed?

No-version 1.44_11

I'm going to learn my way around this version first.

sashbash · Post by **sashbash** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 11:26 pm

hi breitt,

i'm really interested in the Nemo...a hardware sequencer is really important to me and i've been through a few without being totally satisfied.

you clearly like it, but is was wondering how you find it compared to the Monomachine. Currently I'm using the mono as my only hardware sequencer for my external equipment, but there are obvious limitations with the mono. i've had the dopefer MAQ (which as a sequencer could do more than the mono), but got tired of it as I found there was too much thinking (sounds a bit lazy, but i like more immediacy). what i'm really wondering is do you find yourself using the mono less to sequence other stuff (if you do at all)????? now that you have the nemo.

thanks.

syncretism · Post by **syncretism** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 11:48 pm

I'm not Breitt, I don't know what you're looking for and I have nothing to say about the Nemo, but perhaps the most intuitive dedicated hardware sequencer I've used was the Manikin Schrittmacher. If you haven't used it, I recommend getting a little face-time with one before buying anything else. It may be just the tool you need {or maybe not}.

breitt · Post by **breitt** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:11 am

sashbash wrote:hi breitt,

i'm really interested in the Nemo...a hardware sequencer is really important to me and i've been through a few without being totally satisfied.

you clearly like it, but is was wondering how you find it compared to the Monomachine. Currently I'm using the mono as my only hardware sequencer for my external equipment, but there are obvious limitations with the mono. i've had the dopefer MAQ (which as a sequencer could do more than the mono), but got tired of it as I found there was too much thinking (sounds a bit lazy, but i like more immediacy). what i'm really wondering is do you find yourself using the mono less to sequence other stuff (if you do at all)????? now that you have the nemo.

thanks.

I also had used the Mono for external sequencing until I received the Nemo. The Nemo is superior in every way, but the one thing to realize is that there is no pattern storage. You will need to upload the current "machine state" via sysex (maybe USB soon?) in order to save the current patterns you are working on. You are able to take a "snapshot" of the current machine state before turning the Nemo off or switching parameters/settings and it will remember it, but that's it.

I've also used many other hardware sequencers, and the Nemo is, by far, the most intuitive. The Schrittmacher, which syncretism mentioned, is also an excellent choice, but I found that not having the kind of real-time visual feedback (via chase lights) that the Nemo provides was kind of a drawback for my paticular workflow.

droolmaster0 · Post by **droolmaster0** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:09 am

breitt wrote:...
I also had used the Mono for external sequencing until I received the Nemo. The Nemo is superior in every way, but the one thing to realize is that there is no pattern storage. You will need to upload the current "machine state" via sysex (maybe USB soon?) in order to save the current patterns you are working on. You are able to take a "snapshot" of the current machine state before turning the Nemo off or switching parameters/settings and it will remember it, but that's it.

I've also used many other hardware sequencers, and the Nemo is, by far, the most intuitive. The Schrittmacher, which syncretism mentioned, is also an excellent choice, but I found that not having the kind of real-time visual feedback (via chase lights) that the Nemo provides was kind of a drawback for my paticular workflow.

a few somewhat random thoughts. I upgraded my Octopus to 1.6, but haven't spent too much time with it since, except to mess with the new step phrase features (not available as yet on the Nemo).

I can't recall whether this is one of the Octopus only features at this point, but:
"Individual page save/restore
Pages may now be individually saved and restored......etc"

As far as the relative intuitiveness of hardware sequencers, and Niall's comments....the schrittmacher, to my mind, is more intuitive, but mostly because it does quite a bit less. I like the Schrittmacher, but saw know reason to keep mine after I got the Octopus. The work flow is different, and the Octopus doesn't do everything that the Schrittmacher does, but overall I don't think that there is much comparison. Given the relative prices of the Nemo and the Schrittmacher, I'd strongly recommend the Nemo if someone doesn't have a chance to demo both. Even if not, you can download manuals, and get an idea of what each machine can do (though the Octopus docs, and I assume also the Nemos, can be a little abstract if you don't have one in front of you).

If you're looking for intuitive, though, and you have cv/gate analog gear, there's nothing like the immediacy that you get with a real analog sequencer. I am probably going to be looking to sell or trade one of my sam-16's, so I suppose that this comment is not entirely without selfish motivation, but I also find this to be true of my other analog sequencers. But, if you're using primarily midi gear, I don't think that there is anything quite like the Octopus (and I assume the Nemo). It doesn't ascend to the algorithmic bliss of the p3, however, but goes way beyond it in its interface and structural capabilities.

sashbash · Post by **sashbash** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:33 pm

thanks for the comments chaps. really helpful...i had a look at the manual for the nemo and completely overlooked the part where you can't store patterns!! that's good to know, but to be honest i very rarely go back to previous patterns i've made, i tend to work on one for a while, then record it and stick with it. I find with the monomachine i never return to older patterns, so this emission on the nemo doesn't bother me too much.

the Schrittmacher is one i looked at a while back and the price tag put me off, and I went with the MAQ instead (now sold). it's definitely a great sequencer but i like the idea of having no screen to work with... i sometimes use my numerology software (which is fantastic), but i find i can work only for so long staring intently at a screen before my head gets fuzzy...so a nemo might be right up my street.

ideally i'd like to try them out, but (unless i've overlooked somewhere) there's no local dealer in the uk for both the nemo and the Schrittmacher.

@droolmaster0 i'm only really interested in a midi sequencer..i do have a lot of cv/gate modular stuff, but i have a kenton pro which helps control all that.

droolmaster0 · Post by **droolmaster0** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 6:14 pm

sashbash wrote:...

@droolmaster0 i'm only really interested in a midi sequencer..i do have a lot of cv/gate modular stuff, but i have a kenton pro which helps control all that.

My comments were made with that assumption. I love my Octopus, but for controlling modular synths, I do find that a good analog sequencer (or, preferably more than one) is a different kind of experience. Your mileage may differ.

sashbash · Post by **sashbash** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 6:59 pm

absolutely. i dont disagree. i have a couple of small analogue cv sequencers within the modular setup (which are limited, but equally great for what they do), however i've been looking for an "ultimate" midi sequencer that basically is easy to use, can work with any of my hardware equipment and is inspiring....the more i think about it the more the Nemo comes into mind. For me the Octopus looks maybe too much...I say this now, but you never now, in a years time I'll be selling the Nemo to fund an Octopus purchase!

I find a lot of sequencers I have used have nearly all been fun/inspiring initially (new gear honeymoon period), then small issues have crept in and put me off a little (in terms of creating). Looking back on the equipment I have owned, i found the Future Retro Revolution the most fun (and the most productive), due to its tactile nature and immediacy... While the MAQ i came up with the more complex modulating patterns. Let's be honest though, you can sequence with anything that's out there really, but things like the Nemo/Octopus can really inspire (which is worth spending money on).....sorry for the slight thread diversion, and thanks for the help.

Initial Genoqs Nemo Reaction-

Initial Genoqs Nemo Reaction-

Re: Initial Genoqs Nemo Reaction-

Re: Initial Genoqs Nemo Reaction-

Re: Initial Genoqs Nemo Reaction-

Re: Initial Genoqs Nemo Reaction-

Re: Initial Genoqs Nemo Reaction-

Re: Initial Genoqs Nemo Reaction-

Re: Initial Genoqs Nemo Reaction-

Re: Initial Genoqs Nemo Reaction-

Re: Initial Genoqs Nemo Reaction-

Re: Initial Genoqs Nemo Reaction-

Re: Initial Genoqs Nemo Reaction-

Re: Initial Genoqs Nemo Reaction-